Here is the problem with law school: every subject matter in law school can be taught a the college level. Contracts, criminal law, evidence, civil procedure, legal research and writing, property, torts, and constitutional law are all subjects that a college student can take and master. There is absolutely no reason why a student who is already investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in college should need to invest hundreds of thousands more in law school. If we rewrote the rules on who can sit for the bar exam to include college graduates, universities and colleges will be willing to offer law school courses for college students. After college graduation, they can immediately apply to take their state's bar exam. This can save each student 3 years of their life and hundreds of thousands of dollars of unnecessary tuition and expenses. By opening up law school to college students, college students will also be able to decide early on in their life whether legal practice is for them. If not, they will still have ample time to change majors.
30
Will Dropping the LSAT Requirement Create More Miserable Lawyers?
No, just more incompetent ones...
No, just more incompetent ones...
31
The worst thing to happen to me was to be accepted to a top law school. I had vowed to myself I would do law only if I got into a top law school. Well...
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Just because you got in, doesn't mean you should go.
Just because the money is good in the short term, doesn't mean it's worth it in the long term.
If you're not serious enough about being a lawyer to take the LSAT, then it's probably not a good idea to apply to law school.
The temptation is great because, let's be honest, Harvard Law is easier to get into than the Harvard philosophy department, and faced with the name of Harvard Law versus say, the philosophy department at the State U, you may not be able to resist. And that would be a very miserable choice.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Just because you got in, doesn't mean you should go.
Just because the money is good in the short term, doesn't mean it's worth it in the long term.
If you're not serious enough about being a lawyer to take the LSAT, then it's probably not a good idea to apply to law school.
The temptation is great because, let's be honest, Harvard Law is easier to get into than the Harvard philosophy department, and faced with the name of Harvard Law versus say, the philosophy department at the State U, you may not be able to resist. And that would be a very miserable choice.
34
I absolutely love what I do: family and matrimonial practice in New York City. I do not understand the negativity on the part of some here. We are all lucky we are not peanut peddlers. We sell a life altering service for which we see the fruits of our labors quickly.
9
I wouldn't base a decision for going to law school on how well one did on the LSATs. I scored in the 97th percentile back in the 1960s, got into a top law school, and subsequently never practiced a single day. With no regrets either, might I say. Lucky for me that tuition back then was modest and caused me to have no debt whatsoever.
15
Going to law school allowed me to pursue my passion, to have work that inspires me every day, and therefore was one of the best decisions I have made in my life . . . as for Brie cheese, one must understand the essence of what makes something great, and, in the case of Brie it is the quality of the fat, so I would never buy inferior Brie cheese deficient in the beautiful fat that makes it great. Pursue cheese that you love . . . pursue a life's work that resonates with your ethics and inspires you and you will not be miserable when you eat your cheese and work in your field. Unfortunately, the LSAT provides no insight into those things and therefore has no bearing on the prevalence of job satisfaction among lawyers. The author's comments otherwise are rhetoric based upon his own subjective bad decisions, not an objective truth that offers wisdom to anyone.
22
I was a commercial real estate lawyer for many years, practicing in two top notch law firms, working with very smart people who also loved practicing law. I used to wonder how lucky I was to get paid more than the US President and do what I loved doing. The job was very high pressure and in my case required a lot of travel. I had to work with some pretty demanding clients, but I learned I could do it. The hours were horrible. Most weekends saw me in the office at least one day.
Most of the people I knew who hated practicing law were not very good lawyers.
But the field has certainly changed for the worst. People who entered the legal field when I did, in the late '70's, hit the crest of the wave. I don't recommend the legal profession any more unless one is able to attend one of the top three schools.
Most of the people I knew who hated practicing law were not very good lawyers.
But the field has certainly changed for the worst. People who entered the legal field when I did, in the late '70's, hit the crest of the wave. I don't recommend the legal profession any more unless one is able to attend one of the top three schools.
13
Here's objective data from a sample of size 1. My LSAT score was the median of my entering class at an upper tier law school, and I graduated exactly in the middle of the class. During law school, I was an instructor for Kaplan LSAT prep courses, so I went through the LSAT dozens of times. My score (on practice exams) did not increase significantly despite all of that, which indicates to me that the LSAT is essentially an intelligence test. Realistically, the purpose of LSAT prep courses should be to help students have their best test day possible by knowing the test format and rules.
39 years on, I have had ups and downs with my legal career, but never regretted the investment. I'm 70 and still using my education every day.
39 years on, I have had ups and downs with my legal career, but never regretted the investment. I'm 70 and still using my education every day.
10
Most common lawyers will be replaced by artificial intelligence apps. The rest will do real estate closings. Only a very, very few will become The Firm-type lawyer. No matter how many unqualified students into law school,we know who will get the best jobs. The brightest. You can't artificially change that.
18
Much of this article rings true. After taking a few years exploring the world after college, I had to pick a path. And for me, all of them required that I return to school. Should I go to medical school, law school, go back to University to get a teaching certification or pursue a MS or PhD.
I was never a great student so I thought by process of elimination I could narrow my choices. So I took the LSAT. I had never been in a lawyer's office, and while my uncle was a lawyer, I had no idea what they did outside of what I saw on TV.
In the 1970's when I took the LSAT, it was all all multiple choice questions. From experience I knew I was good at "objective" tests, and that the most important thing is to know is what the question was asking. So the day before I spent 3 hours analyzing the types of questions used in the LSAT. That was all I did, hoping it would led to just an average score, and thus eliminate law school.
Unfortunately/fortunately I scored in the 97 percentile. Heck I thought, I might make a good lawyer. Being good at objective test has its benefits. However, I don't think the LSAT has anything to do with being a good lawyer.
I was never a great student so I thought by process of elimination I could narrow my choices. So I took the LSAT. I had never been in a lawyer's office, and while my uncle was a lawyer, I had no idea what they did outside of what I saw on TV.
In the 1970's when I took the LSAT, it was all all multiple choice questions. From experience I knew I was good at "objective" tests, and that the most important thing is to know is what the question was asking. So the day before I spent 3 hours analyzing the types of questions used in the LSAT. That was all I did, hoping it would led to just an average score, and thus eliminate law school.
Unfortunately/fortunately I scored in the 97 percentile. Heck I thought, I might make a good lawyer. Being good at objective test has its benefits. However, I don't think the LSAT has anything to do with being a good lawyer.
6
I am so far away from taking the LSAT that I would not remember too much of it other than the vague recollection of how untied it seemed to my law school experience it was. But after helping my niece study for it several years ago, I came to realize that the test is astoundingly well suited to determining whether a student can navigate the abstract thinking required in law school, as well as in the actual practice of law. For if it does one thing well, it requires that the examinee learn to set up the correct inquiries to solve the problem before an answer can reasonably be attempted.
That is, you learn to focus on what facts you need, discarding those that are unhelpful, and concentrate on asking the correct questions. Once that is mastered, the answers fall right into line. These are strategies that will assist anyone, but especially law students and lawyers.
I'd be careful about abandoning the LSAT; it's proved its worth.
That is, you learn to focus on what facts you need, discarding those that are unhelpful, and concentrate on asking the correct questions. Once that is mastered, the answers fall right into line. These are strategies that will assist anyone, but especially law students and lawyers.
I'd be careful about abandoning the LSAT; it's proved its worth.
14
I am one of the millions who went to law school for reasons that were wholly unrelated to a desire to be a lawyer. The idea was appalling to me, but for personal reasons I won't get into, I felt I had no choice. Thus the application process was especially miserable, and of course the worst of it was preparing for the LSAT. In my opinion there is nothing on that test that has had anything at all to do with what I've done in 16 years as a criminal defense lawyer.
What it does is provide law school admissions committees with one half of an easy-to-understand formula to help them create "yes" "no" and "maybe" piles. The formula combines, on a 0-100 scale, GPA and LSAT scores. Ordinarily anyone with a 95 and above will be an automatic yes, anyone below 80 will be a definite no, and those in between will be more carefully scrutinized than the rest. The LSAT streamlines the committees' process.
**Do I regret going to law school? No. Do I dream every day of climbing out of debt and quitting? Yes.**
What it does is provide law school admissions committees with one half of an easy-to-understand formula to help them create "yes" "no" and "maybe" piles. The formula combines, on a 0-100 scale, GPA and LSAT scores. Ordinarily anyone with a 95 and above will be an automatic yes, anyone below 80 will be a definite no, and those in between will be more carefully scrutinized than the rest. The LSAT streamlines the committees' process.
**Do I regret going to law school? No. Do I dream every day of climbing out of debt and quitting? Yes.**
17
Personally, I think allowing other considerations besides the LSAT is a good thing. The LSAT is a great predictor of how certain types of people will do in a staid and non-innovative learning environment but NOT a predictor of lawyerly skill and creativity. The real disappointment is attending law school expecting a Socratic dialog with learned professionals and instead finding a blur of PowerPoint slides, limited teaching competency, undeveloped Socratic ability, and the persistence of those long-outdated "essay" questions that test memory and stamina rather than critical thinking. Law schools also need to peek out from the ivy and embrace more vocational learning and less hoop jumping... and that includes the LSAT and it's weird logic tests. I know, Professor, you had to jump over these same hurdles when you were a young whipper-snapper, but that doesn't make it right. Lawyers learn by doing now, not by long-forgotten discussions about International Shoe. Organizing Mary and Sally's work schedule on the LSAT might be a predictor of success at those ridiculous exams, but they are not a predictor of dealing with real people and real problems.
6
One should also add that there are very few jobs as lawyers. At my workplace I am shocked at the number of people who take entry level jobs as clerks/administrators who are lawyers. Most are age 30 to 42. They worked as a lawyer and got out. Some are pretty honest that it was brutal or they hated it. Others seem to not even mention it. One lets you know every time you deal with them that "I'm a lawyer you know."
15
The writer fails to mention that most who enter law school will not end up as practicing lawyers. I have said and will always maintain that finishing law school is the best liberal education one can have. It allows for an approach to problem solving that few other degrees offer, and witness those who have gone through law school and never practiced and went one to run large corporations, businesses and on to help the rest of humanity in one way or another, but not as lawyers. And yes, they are happy in their lives.
22
More than 30 years ago, I was preparing to take the LSAT with my best friend. I'll always remember his comment that "I have very little faith in standardized tests; and if I score really well on this one I will have even less faith in them!"
8
Considering that there are way too many attorneys in this country as it is, and considering that over the course of the 33 years I have been a Member of the New York State Bar the quality and competence of legal representation that I have encountered has plummeted to the point that I have actually received opposing briefs that cite Facebook and Fox News as "scholarly" sources, I would have to say that the LAST thing we need right now is to make it any easier for more unqualified individuals too put an "Esq." after their names.
27
As the son of a lawyer, the advice I got when considering taking the LSAT and applying to law school was this: law is a good profession to miss out on. Now working as a financial journalist covering mergers and acquisitions, I realize that lawyers rank near the bottom of the taxonomy of business, behind corporate executives, bankers and their collective regulators, but ahead of journalists.
10
After leaving Biglaw where nearly everyone had good grades and LSATs, I worked as an associate at a very small firm for awhile for a guy who didn't believe grades, LSATs, law school, experience, or really anything were predictive of good lawyering. So he hired a guy he wanted to believe would be great. He had to fire him a year or so later after realizing the guy just wasn't terribly sharp. I believe the phrase he used was that he needed "more intellectual firepower."
3
When I was in law school 45 years ago there were some who complained about the required "core curriculum" which was designed to prepare and train only professional attorneys as opposed to more "touchy feely" ( read "fun") courses for more "well-rounded" educated people. A wise Professor said," why don't we just offer an optional Master of Arts in Law that doesn't qualify people to take the bar exam or practice law for those who just want "enrichment" in their lives, but keep the required rigorous courses for the professional degree." That ended the discussion. The LSAT v. GRE debate strikes me the same way.
1
Asian Americans are currently underrepresented in the legal profession: according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, over 10% of American doctors, engineers, mathematicians, scientists, etc. belong to Asian ethnicities, while only 3% of lawyers do. It's safe to assume that this is stereotyping and discrimination at work, of the same kind that limited the numbers of Jewish American university students in the past.
I have quite often heard people in the US complain that there are too many Asian students at US universities. There was even at least one New York Times article voicing this complaint. Lacking any sort of objective criteria, being about nothing more than a bare-knuckled struggle for power, the US legal field is one in which people can manifest such ethnic and racial prejudice without any restraint.
GRE-based law school admissions may provide Asian American students with an easier and more prejudice-free path into the profession. If that's how it is used, to promote merit-based admissions and get rid of the informal ethnic quotas that keep valuable candidates out, it will be a good thing. However, I really doubt that's the true intent of this proposal.
I have quite often heard people in the US complain that there are too many Asian students at US universities. There was even at least one New York Times article voicing this complaint. Lacking any sort of objective criteria, being about nothing more than a bare-knuckled struggle for power, the US legal field is one in which people can manifest such ethnic and racial prejudice without any restraint.
GRE-based law school admissions may provide Asian American students with an easier and more prejudice-free path into the profession. If that's how it is used, to promote merit-based admissions and get rid of the informal ethnic quotas that keep valuable candidates out, it will be a good thing. However, I really doubt that's the true intent of this proposal.
1
The SAT, GRE, ACT, LSAT and MCAT do not predict whom among us will be successful in pursuing a higher and/or specialized education. The only factors any of these tests may predict are who may employ sufficient luck in designating which answer and those who really get off on patiently playing logic/math problems. Perhaps we need to re-think who are admitted to universities and/or law, medical, graduate schools. With all the various legal, medical, etc., related licenses granted by the State and Federal governments, perhaps those license holders ought to be given preference in professional school admissions since they already have a clue. Yes, apprenticeship is a good idea Will people find their bliss? Who in creation knows? But one thing that is certain, watching Kim Kardasian and deciding that's what one wants gets us nothing but dissatisfied people watching Fox Fake News and voting for DJT.
By comparing the decision to go to law school with buying low fat Brie, Ms. Green shows the problem for many people considering entering law school. A serious decision should be made after serious thought on the subject. My father went to law school at night while working full time raising three children. He is proud to be a member of the bar not when introducing himself at a party (since, let's face it, no one "tacks "Esquire" to the end of their name when introducing themselves at a party or asking to speak to a restaurant manager) but because of the good work he does. He truly has a love for the law and its importance in society. The problem is that law schools are not finding enough people like him, and too many people who would rather be doing something else. Law schools today are in fact full of people who are not enamored by the law. I know because I am in law school now and can say I do not find the experience as rewarding as my father did. I find it especially true what Ms. Green says for women, that going to law school was the path of least resistance. Pushing for diversity has obviously pushed some people to make poor career choices. Perhaps the answer is to offer legal classes for undergraduates to see if they enjoy the subject matter, or have the LSAT test legal reasoning rather than games. People need to understand that this is a much bigger decision than what kind of cheese to buy.
12
Virtually all licensure and employment tests have a limited shelf life. That is, they can start out being highly predictive of the ability of someone to perform or fit into some role. Although they can start out being useful for all the right reasons, over time they can start to lose predictive validity as more and more people become familiar with the test, preparation aids become available, or the content simplybecomes part of common knowledge.
The value of such tests is indisputable. However the *permanence* or lifespan of that value can vary from test to test. It may simply be time for something else to replace the LSAT.
The value of such tests is indisputable. However the *permanence* or lifespan of that value can vary from test to test. It may simply be time for something else to replace the LSAT.
1
I would worry more about the miserable clients getting the short end of the stick (and paying $750 an hour) if I were you.
My dad insisted that I go to law school. Every week I heard the same turgid lecture about the glories of "the law", as if hitting me over the head with a brick every Saturday would prompt me to do it. So, I took a test-LSAT Kaplan offered and did reasonably well. So armed, I "went to "Boalt" (UC Berkeley's fabled law school) the same way Trump "went to" Wharton (U. Penn's fabled B-school): sat in on some first year lectures, trying to figure out if it "spoke" to me.
It didn't.
Lawyering is about many things, but especially about chasing devils in details. I'm not detail oriented. And it slowly dawned on me as I listened to those boring lectures that I was bored by it. And I lacked something called a "legal mind".
I don't regret my decision not to pursue it. I felt no calling. The subject didn't interest me, both reasons why I would have made a terrible lawyer.
Dad, of course, refused to accept my decision. He remained adamant that I do it personal interest be damned; flailing arguments that became more incredulous with every passing week until, finally, they breached absurdity. By his lights, whether you liked what you were doing or not didn't matter so long as you made money. In addition to the daily grind and confronting the difficulties inherent in any profession the money meant I would overcome my aversion.
Don't go, if that's your motivation.
My dad insisted that I go to law school. Every week I heard the same turgid lecture about the glories of "the law", as if hitting me over the head with a brick every Saturday would prompt me to do it. So, I took a test-LSAT Kaplan offered and did reasonably well. So armed, I "went to "Boalt" (UC Berkeley's fabled law school) the same way Trump "went to" Wharton (U. Penn's fabled B-school): sat in on some first year lectures, trying to figure out if it "spoke" to me.
It didn't.
Lawyering is about many things, but especially about chasing devils in details. I'm not detail oriented. And it slowly dawned on me as I listened to those boring lectures that I was bored by it. And I lacked something called a "legal mind".
I don't regret my decision not to pursue it. I felt no calling. The subject didn't interest me, both reasons why I would have made a terrible lawyer.
Dad, of course, refused to accept my decision. He remained adamant that I do it personal interest be damned; flailing arguments that became more incredulous with every passing week until, finally, they breached absurdity. By his lights, whether you liked what you were doing or not didn't matter so long as you made money. In addition to the daily grind and confronting the difficulties inherent in any profession the money meant I would overcome my aversion.
Don't go, if that's your motivation.
8
I have been a lawyer for over 44 years and practiced for 25. I set out on my own after 1 year working for a small firm in Manhattan. I really enjoyed the early years. It was all about the law and I made money to boot. But as the years went by making money became more important than the law. Clients would ask for advice on how the manipulate, hide or even cheat. You became the clients tool toward whatever objective they had in mind. It became depressing and as the years went by I lost my desire to practice. Other lawyers in an effort to prove themselves became obnoxious and ever more aggressive. You were no longer practicing law as much as defending yourself against other lawyers insults.
The case sometimes became irrelevant-it was all about beat up the other attorney. I think the LSAT or the GRE needs to be replaced with a mental examination of anyone who is seeking to become an attorney. Maybe we could get a more stable group of attorneys.
The case sometimes became irrelevant-it was all about beat up the other attorney. I think the LSAT or the GRE needs to be replaced with a mental examination of anyone who is seeking to become an attorney. Maybe we could get a more stable group of attorneys.
12
The removal of the LSAT requirement will not necessarily create more miserable lawyers...but more miserably horrible lawyers.
14
LSAT, GRE, simply try to gauge success. The impression that the "LSAT" is unique because of "special tailoring" is a myth at best. A good student will learn the applicable material. The bigger issue is why so many lawyers? We really don't need them, but they have created a self serving "scenario of necessity".
All the average person needs is a well drawn will. What society does not need is the plethora of attorneys who will sue anyone at any time for any reason, will claim they will win huge awards (most of which they keep for themselves), or infer that trusts (of which they will be paid trustee) are some much better than that simple will above coupled with the beneficiary forms provided by every entity that holds the account.
All the average person needs is a well drawn will. What society does not need is the plethora of attorneys who will sue anyone at any time for any reason, will claim they will win huge awards (most of which they keep for themselves), or infer that trusts (of which they will be paid trustee) are some much better than that simple will above coupled with the beneficiary forms provided by every entity that holds the account.
Bad idea. Most of the lawyers I already work with are dumber than stink bugs. Need to weed these dumbos out.
From a disgruntled misfit who scored in the top 6%.
From a disgruntled misfit who scored in the top 6%.
8
It is unfortunate that there are lawyers who, for whatever reason, have not found their "passion." As a proud member of the Bar for 30 years, trial lawyer and now a judge, I can spot a budding successful lawyer by their 1st motion. Just like athletes, passion and drive will overtake "aptitude" every day of the week. And yes, law IS for people who truly want to help others, not just "make money." Lawyers are the modern-day "Wise Men/Women" that folks consult in their darkest hour. If you can't stand that heat, stay out of my kitchen!
6
For those whose interests and talents fit well with a legal career, working as a lawyer can be one of the most gratifying and fascinating experiences you can be paid for. It does take a certain type, though, If you never had to be forced as a kid to put down that book, if you never got into trouble for steadfastly arguing with a parent, a teacher or a preacher, if you never ached to thoroughly understand something that you weren't yet qualified to understand, then don't go to law school. I can't imagine anyone having enough self-discipline to succeed in law school, or as a lawyer, without, at least much of the time, looking forward to doing the work for its own sake.
A high score on the LSATs is one good data point indicating that you have the aptitude for the law, but those who really ought to become lawyers know it before they leave high school. I'm pretty sure it's not all that different for doctors, musicians, dancers, engineers, programmers, or many other professions. A professional school that was more motivated to graduate successful and happy alumni than to optimize its revenue would have an admission process that focused more on talent and desire than on acceptance ratios.
A high score on the LSATs is one good data point indicating that you have the aptitude for the law, but those who really ought to become lawyers know it before they leave high school. I'm pretty sure it's not all that different for doctors, musicians, dancers, engineers, programmers, or many other professions. A professional school that was more motivated to graduate successful and happy alumni than to optimize its revenue would have an admission process that focused more on talent and desire than on acceptance ratios.
7
I graduated from law school in 1979. I did not study for the LSAT...back then people didn't prepare, we just took the exam. As for wanting to be a lawyer? I just wanted not to be required to type for a living. The secretarial track was where women with liberal arts degrees were deemed to belong when I graduated with a BA in 1973 (and with a MA in 1975). At least a graduate of law school graduated with a job title, which allowed me to reach by goal: I was never asked to type for a living again.
I did not like being a lawyer, and eventually stopped being one, but I do not regret my legal education. It opened doors for me and gave me a path forward that I would not have had otherwise. It also gave me a foundation of knowledge and thinking that has enrichment my life in numerous ways. Of course, back then law school was much more affordable. Upon graduation from the UGA law school, I had debt of only $1000, having worked (2 jobs at times) and gotten scholarships (and had a little financial help from my mother). I can't imagine taking on the expense of law school today.
I did not like being a lawyer, and eventually stopped being one, but I do not regret my legal education. It opened doors for me and gave me a path forward that I would not have had otherwise. It also gave me a foundation of knowledge and thinking that has enrichment my life in numerous ways. Of course, back then law school was much more affordable. Upon graduation from the UGA law school, I had debt of only $1000, having worked (2 jobs at times) and gotten scholarships (and had a little financial help from my mother). I can't imagine taking on the expense of law school today.
5
Since the LSAT is held in only a few countries outside the USA, and the GRE exam is held in over 160 nations, people from all over the world will likely start to consider law school as an option. As a foreigner with a BA from a US university, I have considered applying to law school and refrained from doing so -- lacking access to any LSAT test center, I'd have to pay hundreds of dollars and undergo a complicated bureaucratic process to request a nonpublished LSAT test center. Now that the GRE is gaining widespread acceptance, law school has become a contender once again.
2
I've been practicing law since 1982. I feel very fortunate to have my own practice representing employees who have been treated illegally by their employers. I have had my own practice since 1985.
When I got out of law school, however, I went to work with a large firm that offered a large paycheck. Within a few months I felt I had made a terrible mistake. I regretted having gone to law school because I hated the job I was in. Ultimately this led me to opening my own practice. Without any business skills, it took me a while to get the hang of keeping my overhead below my income.
My wife is actually proud of me because of the work I do. So is my son. So are many of my friends. But it is true that judges tend to look harshly upon lawyers who represent the downtrodden, the little guy. Naturally, this is not true of all judges, but it is true of many.
I am so glad that I did not make a decision to end my legal career while I was working for that large law firm. The job I have now versus the job I had then is like day versus night.
Don't go to law school because you want to make money or because you don't know what to do. Don't go to law school unless you truly want to be an attorney. I have interviewed so many young law school graduates that were so ill-suited for the profession that I wondered how and why they ever got into law school. I am often grateful when I think about how fortunate I am to have been able to spend the last 30 years of my life working as an attorney.
When I got out of law school, however, I went to work with a large firm that offered a large paycheck. Within a few months I felt I had made a terrible mistake. I regretted having gone to law school because I hated the job I was in. Ultimately this led me to opening my own practice. Without any business skills, it took me a while to get the hang of keeping my overhead below my income.
My wife is actually proud of me because of the work I do. So is my son. So are many of my friends. But it is true that judges tend to look harshly upon lawyers who represent the downtrodden, the little guy. Naturally, this is not true of all judges, but it is true of many.
I am so glad that I did not make a decision to end my legal career while I was working for that large law firm. The job I have now versus the job I had then is like day versus night.
Don't go to law school because you want to make money or because you don't know what to do. Don't go to law school unless you truly want to be an attorney. I have interviewed so many young law school graduates that were so ill-suited for the profession that I wondered how and why they ever got into law school. I am often grateful when I think about how fortunate I am to have been able to spend the last 30 years of my life working as an attorney.
63
Ideally, the opposite may occur by removing the LSAT. I took both the LSAT and the GMAT (for MBA) and I can say that the former is more conducive to the intellectually lazy recent graduate. Simple reason = GMAT contains math. Same with the GRE. If you have to know basic calculus, you can't just coast through philosophy classes and then get a law degree. Today, as an entrepreneur, I value lawyers who actually, you know, have technical skills over the schmoozing and conniving that tend to characterize the legal field as it has been.
8
I took the law boards in 1962. There was no such thing as studying (at least I didn't know of it), my friend had to wake me up after a weekend bender to deliver me up to the exam forum. Took the exam while still drunk and got the highest score of my college. Still ended up miserable, practicing law for 25 years before I moved on. Truly an exam and career where drink helps.
10
i have worked as a law firm partner, a law school administrator and now work as a senior administrator at a university. From my personal experience and research I have seen, the LSAT is a good predictor of first semester law school grades, and is of course a determinant of acceptance to an elite law school.
I have former law school colleagues who have had stellar legal careers, yet had mediocre LSAT scores, and vica versa. I have friends who went to middle of the road law schools who are very successful attorneys, and friends who went to elite law schools who are in the middle of the professional pack.
When I went to a state law school thirty years ago, one could finish law school with minimal debt. That is no longer true. Students considering law school need to spend lots of time exploring the profession and exploring their personalities. I found after twelve years as a fairly successful litigator, that I really did not want daily conflict as a part of my professional life for the next few decades. A simple personality test could have told me that before I went to law school.
My law degree, with minimal law school debt, has served me well as a foundation for a gratifying and multifaceted professional life. I would think long and hard today about incurring the debt law school reqiures unless I was very certain I wanted to be an attorney for a long time, LSAT or no LSAT.
I have former law school colleagues who have had stellar legal careers, yet had mediocre LSAT scores, and vica versa. I have friends who went to middle of the road law schools who are very successful attorneys, and friends who went to elite law schools who are in the middle of the professional pack.
When I went to a state law school thirty years ago, one could finish law school with minimal debt. That is no longer true. Students considering law school need to spend lots of time exploring the profession and exploring their personalities. I found after twelve years as a fairly successful litigator, that I really did not want daily conflict as a part of my professional life for the next few decades. A simple personality test could have told me that before I went to law school.
My law degree, with minimal law school debt, has served me well as a foundation for a gratifying and multifaceted professional life. I would think long and hard today about incurring the debt law school reqiures unless I was very certain I wanted to be an attorney for a long time, LSAT or no LSAT.
17
I was lucky. I bless the law and every NYU law professor who came my way. I even like the night time smell of old law books.
As for lawyers and everyone else whose work is a daily misery, learn the Irish skill of dancing with a smile as you glide past the orchestra.
As for lawyers and everyone else whose work is a daily misery, learn the Irish skill of dancing with a smile as you glide past the orchestra.
4
I feel somewhat the same. I got a PhD in math and enjoyed the hours then spent perusing old (often irrelevant) math texts from 'ancient' history including an first edition by Brook Taylor (when I was an undergraduate at UC Berkeley) that was still inexplicably in the stacks. The difference, of course, between those books and the law books cited by the referrant is that the math books contained...the truth.
Did this article and some commenters deliberately misinterpret Harvard's decision to accept the GRE? Harvard did this to give people who would not take the LSAT an easier road to applying to law school. This will give the school a wider variety of applicants to chose from. Because the LSAT can be a barrier to application, in itself, Harvard is making the effort to eliminate that barrier.
Contrary to many of the comments (even Times Picks!), and the implication of the article, Harvard did not offer to review applications w/o LSATs to expand the number of students it accepts, or to try to encourage students to become lawyers who are not interested in a career in law. It is surprising how many people yearn to find fault with Harvard even when it is doing the right thing. It is also surprising how many people still consider it a badge of honor that they "took the LSAT, did great, but didn't go to Law school". hasn't the Trump Presidency has taught us is that lawyers who can defend our rights and our Constitution are critical to our society's continued survival?
Removing an arbitrary barrier to law school admissions is a great thing-- and is unrelated to the issues like boredom, depression and debts, which plague some law school students. Conflating the two is beneath the NYT. Being an attorney can be a career of extraordinary fulfillment and importance. I am darn sure that the lawyers who took down the Muslim Travel bans feel good about their lives, as they should.
Contrary to many of the comments (even Times Picks!), and the implication of the article, Harvard did not offer to review applications w/o LSATs to expand the number of students it accepts, or to try to encourage students to become lawyers who are not interested in a career in law. It is surprising how many people yearn to find fault with Harvard even when it is doing the right thing. It is also surprising how many people still consider it a badge of honor that they "took the LSAT, did great, but didn't go to Law school". hasn't the Trump Presidency has taught us is that lawyers who can defend our rights and our Constitution are critical to our society's continued survival?
Removing an arbitrary barrier to law school admissions is a great thing-- and is unrelated to the issues like boredom, depression and debts, which plague some law school students. Conflating the two is beneath the NYT. Being an attorney can be a career of extraordinary fulfillment and importance. I am darn sure that the lawyers who took down the Muslim Travel bans feel good about their lives, as they should.
47
I suspect the lawyers who are trying to obtain social justice - and medical care - for the survivors of the San Bernardino Christmas Massacre feel good, if not extremely frustrated dealing with California's entrenched bureaucracies. Maybe those attorneys should appeal to the Ninth Circuit for judiciary relief.
1
For the record, scores on the GRE Verbal section and the LSAT correlate at r = .76 (higher if the two tests are taken within a week or so of each other), which means that while they are not quite interchangeable, they are definitely tapping into the same underlying constructs.
This finding may be found here: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED468955.pdf
This finding may be found here: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED468955.pdf
3
THose tests are mainly just money makers for the testings services who write
and sell the tests.
and sell the tests.
4
the lsat and gre for that matter within the context of law school admissions will never predict ultimate satisfaction or misery as a practicing attorney; they exist to artificially limit the supply of lawyers and maintain the monopoly of "professional" legal services by the aba. having a "logic games" component in one test and not another is irrelevant and won't have any influence on practitioner job satisfaction. focus on the extremely heavy debt and serf working conditions and you may find your answer. btw: eliminate the monopoly and legal services could get to the poor the people who are largely frozen out as a result of the nonsensical standardized tests.
2
I might add that nowadays, with computer power and memory getting cheaper and cheaper, many things formerly done by human lawyers is being automated. I wouldn't pay to get job skills so easily replaced!
8
The highest level skills used by lawyers can't be duplicated by computers, but with so much routine work, for example, document review, performable by technology, there's less need for lawyers by firms, making the the job market even more brutal.
Even practices that aren't necessarily affected by technology, such as public interest law, have many more people vying for positions than jobs and they don't offer handsome salaries that pay off those onerous student loans.
Even practices that aren't necessarily affected by technology, such as public interest law, have many more people vying for positions than jobs and they don't offer handsome salaries that pay off those onerous student loans.
2
I took the LSAT 42 years ago. We were told not to waste our time "studying" for it. I didn't. Got a 740 out of 800 on it. Received my B.A. in just over two years with a 3.7 GPA. I was accepted at Stanford Law, but I had no "calling" to be a lawyer, so I went to a top 20 law school instead. Why spend more money than I needed to for a course of study that is mostly self-taught, I reasoned . . .
I found most of the subject matter in law school boring. Syllogistic reasoning was emphasized to the point of being superficial and anti-intellectual. Neither creative thinking nor causal reasoning were encouraged. What was passed off as Socratic classroom discussion amounted to little more than a game of "gotcha" by the profs.
I think the LSAT mindset reflected in the educational culture of law school has stifled the true intellectual development of young legal minds and, as a consequence, our justice system as a whole, so I'm in favor of accepting a GRE score as an alternate admission test just to mix things up -- hopefully, for the better!!!
I found most of the subject matter in law school boring. Syllogistic reasoning was emphasized to the point of being superficial and anti-intellectual. Neither creative thinking nor causal reasoning were encouraged. What was passed off as Socratic classroom discussion amounted to little more than a game of "gotcha" by the profs.
I think the LSAT mindset reflected in the educational culture of law school has stifled the true intellectual development of young legal minds and, as a consequence, our justice system as a whole, so I'm in favor of accepting a GRE score as an alternate admission test just to mix things up -- hopefully, for the better!!!
5
I believe the LSAT (even 40 years ago) has never been scored on a scale to 800.
2
If medical schools used the same admission criteria as law schools (viz., take on $100,000 in debt and fog a mirror) patients would be dying left and right.
If you ever need a lawyer, do your research. Two thirds of the lawyers in this country have attended third rate law schools, and their work is second rate. Many of them are semi-literate and can't even prepare a legible brief.
If you ever need a lawyer, do your research. Two thirds of the lawyers in this country have attended third rate law schools, and their work is second rate. Many of them are semi-literate and can't even prepare a legible brief.
16
The LSAT was a piece of cake, law school was a breeze- thirty-five years ago. The difficulty is not the practice, it is the interstate movement of attorneys through reciprocal admission.
When I began practicing in Idaho, all my fellow attorneys were Idahoans, all of us educated in the same building by the same professors. We were once an congenial, helpful group of co-workers trying to resolve difficult situations by working together. But in the '90's, when out-of-state attorneys were granted reciprocal admission, we had an influx of rude, disparaging, hostile, and downright unprofessional attorneys, admitted to some other state's Bar, where they must have been taught "winning is everything, compromise is for losers!" and other such extremist nonsense that harms our profession. Winning and money are meaningless in the long run, what matters is how you feel when you live a life dedicated to helping others manage life-threatening problems, even if of their own making.
When I began practicing in Idaho, all my fellow attorneys were Idahoans, all of us educated in the same building by the same professors. We were once an congenial, helpful group of co-workers trying to resolve difficult situations by working together. But in the '90's, when out-of-state attorneys were granted reciprocal admission, we had an influx of rude, disparaging, hostile, and downright unprofessional attorneys, admitted to some other state's Bar, where they must have been taught "winning is everything, compromise is for losers!" and other such extremist nonsense that harms our profession. Winning and money are meaningless in the long run, what matters is how you feel when you live a life dedicated to helping others manage life-threatening problems, even if of their own making.
14
I see too many lawyers and law students, commenting here and elsewhere, claiming the LSAT tests for nothing; that it's pointless; that to succeed in law you need only be good at thinking on your feet, using common sense, and negotiating. Such complaints actually show the LSAT does its job, rather than none at all.
Before lawyers can rely on common sense they have to understand the applicable legal rules first. And to understand legal rules--which are often much more complex than "No parking west of this sign"--requires a certain degree of logical and critical thinking skill. It's those two skills precisely which the LSAT tests for.
The questions may be silly--Do I really care what day Sally can work when Timmy and John are off on Wednesdays? No.--but the point of the LSAT isn't to be interesting. The point is to test who can figure that out, and quickly. Who can and will do it, rather than scoff because the question is silly, or quit because the answer is not intuitive, or otherwise fumble around with questions that literally give you the answers if you have the skill to see them. If lawyers find practicing law to be a matter of common sense, that's because they don't have to spend time drawing diagrams to figure out every legal question thrown their way. (Diagrams, I'll add, they have the skill to draw if they choose to draw them.)
Before lawyers can rely on common sense they have to understand the applicable legal rules first. And to understand legal rules--which are often much more complex than "No parking west of this sign"--requires a certain degree of logical and critical thinking skill. It's those two skills precisely which the LSAT tests for.
The questions may be silly--Do I really care what day Sally can work when Timmy and John are off on Wednesdays? No.--but the point of the LSAT isn't to be interesting. The point is to test who can figure that out, and quickly. Who can and will do it, rather than scoff because the question is silly, or quit because the answer is not intuitive, or otherwise fumble around with questions that literally give you the answers if you have the skill to see them. If lawyers find practicing law to be a matter of common sense, that's because they don't have to spend time drawing diagrams to figure out every legal question thrown their way. (Diagrams, I'll add, they have the skill to draw if they choose to draw them.)
8
Miserable lawyer here who went to law school because of a lack of better ideas. The degree isn't the problem so much as the debt. There's no good reason why tuition should be so high and lenders so willing. I'd much rather work in a bike shop or a restaurant. God I hate my stupid, waste-of-time doc review job. AI can't eradicate this field fast enough.
18
I like my job. I make six figures. Only part of work I Take home is all the kool stuff ppl throw away. Too bad for you. On the bright side, you get to eat lunch at your desk.
1
After carefully reading and considering the arguments in this article, I had to ask...
Low fat Brie????
Low fat Brie????
3
Two issues: Should a reasonably prudent attend law school under the same or similar circumstances as Ms. Green, and is low-fat brie a self-infliction of emotional damage, or "SIED?"
She said it was an accident.
Harvard is doing this for one simple reason - they are desperate to social-engineer their class. If their target demographics constantly tank the LSAT then maybe they can do better on the nominally easier GRE.
The next step may be a series of coloring book challenges - stay in the lines.
The next step may be a series of coloring book challenges - stay in the lines.
9
It is all about suitability. Some people have skills that match with a lawyers job and some don't. I have been a practicing lawyer for 50 years, a trial lawyer in my younger days, and can't remember a bad day. Really. I am still involved, I mediate, because it is the thing I most enjjoy doing. However the practice is very different than it was when I was in my prime. I would not be suited for today's practice. The problem is you don't know if it suits you unttil you do it and by then you have a lot of time and money invested.
10
A 30 yr lawyer, I teach it now to starry eyed undergrad students who don't grasp it is Trump, not Lincoln. Justice is secondary, cash and business development iis primary. That, plus, is it so trivial, and brings out the weasel-clever in humans.
LSAT shows how you'll do in your FIRST year only: I got but B's having bombed it, and then having learned how to "do" law school, got all A's.
Law schools are CASH COWs for universities, throwing off huge sums to support more expensive programs. They no longer even need law space for the books: all digital.
Go to law school at your peril. Too many; too boring; too aggressive; those at the top virtually steal from those coming up.
Old saying: "The dirty little secret about being a lawyer is much of what you do is very boring."
LSAT shows how you'll do in your FIRST year only: I got but B's having bombed it, and then having learned how to "do" law school, got all A's.
Law schools are CASH COWs for universities, throwing off huge sums to support more expensive programs. They no longer even need law space for the books: all digital.
Go to law school at your peril. Too many; too boring; too aggressive; those at the top virtually steal from those coming up.
Old saying: "The dirty little secret about being a lawyer is much of what you do is very boring."
6
I don't understand. I've been reading for years that there's a crisis in the law profession due to saturation of the field. It seems like anyone can go to law school these days. How does making it easier to get in solve this major problem? I'm NOT in favor of making any graduate program or professional school overly difficult to get into, but there must be "speed bumps," as the author notes, to prevent truly unqualified and unmotivated students from entering the programs. When I was applying for medical school, I loathed the prospect of taking the MCAT, which is considered the most difficult admittance exam for any grad. or professional program. But as a second year medical student now, I am grateful the MCAT exists because med. school requires a huge amount of pressured testing, and not being able to successfully perform on the MCAT would make medical school miserable. Also, preparing and sitting for that exam is proof of some time of devotion to becoming a physician.
5
There is generally a oversaturation of lawyers in the USA. Harvard though is going after the really elite students who have stopped going to law school since the legal bubble burst.
3
The LSAT was the bane of my existence for nearly a year. I still remember the days and weeks at Kaplan trying to get my head around the logic questions. Looking back on that experience 20 years later, I am certain there is zero relationship between the LSAT, law school, the bar exam, and practicing law. While part of me feels that the LSAT is a rite-of-passage that links all lawyers together; GPA and admission essays should weigh more heavily towards admission. I would also adopt the admissions practice used by Business Schools in deferring admission for 1 or 2 years so that students can get work/life experience before entering law school. I had the shock of my life on the first day of law school at UC Davis King Hall School of Law when I realized that law school was a trade school; not just a continuation of University studies.
The author seems to presume that the Graduate Record Examination is somehow less of an obstacle than the LSAT. Is there any evidence to support that hypothesis? Not really. In fact, as the author briefly acknowledges, the GRE includes a mathematics section that the LSAT lacks. The LSAT logic puzzles do present an additional challenge (since the GRE Analytical subtest was dropped, anyway), but in both cases the test-taker's performance is being compared to a reference group of college graduates who aspire to advanced degrees. Most of the lawyers I meet are pretty bright, but so are most of the folks with PhDs in history, biology, or economics!
Where the author is correct is here: allowing the GRE to serve both for PhD programs and JD programs will allow people who haven't quite made up their minds to postpone doing so a bit longer. On the other hand, it will also make it a lot easier for people who have completed academic PhDs but decide to combine that with training in law to follow their dual calling. Not to mention those who decide, midway through a doctoral program, that they would be really unhappy as research scientists or college teachers - or as people who are unable to find full-time work in academia at all! You think lawyers are an unhappy bunch? Try talking to PhDs who toil for years as ill-paid postdocs or adjunct lecturers!
Where the author is correct is here: allowing the GRE to serve both for PhD programs and JD programs will allow people who haven't quite made up their minds to postpone doing so a bit longer. On the other hand, it will also make it a lot easier for people who have completed academic PhDs but decide to combine that with training in law to follow their dual calling. Not to mention those who decide, midway through a doctoral program, that they would be really unhappy as research scientists or college teachers - or as people who are unable to find full-time work in academia at all! You think lawyers are an unhappy bunch? Try talking to PhDs who toil for years as ill-paid postdocs or adjunct lecturers!
2
As a formerly unhappy attorney, I shared Ms. Green's sense of regret and likewise counseled friends to think twice before applying to law school. I'm not sure that I agree with her conclusion however. In my case, the burden of the LSAT - the cost of test prep, the time spent studying - exerted a pressure to apply to law school, rather than explore alternatives. I had "invested" so heavily in obtaining a good LSAT score that to not use it felt profligate. With a standardized graduate school exam, students can invest the time to study when convenient - perhaps even before they're sure of their career goals - and retain the freedom to more fully investigate their professional and academic options.
1
Speaking of an honest re-appraisal of choosing a profession, not out of financial interests or to 'show off', but a 'calling', to do good in a world full of injustice and despair. As an agnostic, I can't help citing Matthew's 'many are called, few are chosen' to make that point. We see a similar issue in Medicine, where its commercial success is praised as much as a true calling of service, dedication and sacrifice. As an aside, and likely in jest, Shakespeare's quote (from Henry VI, part 2, act IV, scene 2) "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" , controversial of course, was suggestive that the world would be a better place without lawyers. The irony remains however, when we watch TV advertisements, all dy long, for people to come forth and consider suing any perceived wrong, so the lawyers, under the pretense of 'helping' them, could enrich themselves. Of note, the practice of medicine today has become much more expensive than it should, as doctors feel obligated to do 'defensive' moves (more CT scans, Labs, etc) for self-protection. Granted, lawyers choosing their specialty to serve the public, to protect for real wrongs, and to inform about our rights and obligations, and to decipher complicated codes on modern life, those with a "calling", will always be welcomed. As to pass a test or not, for admission, the former may be more efficient so to avoid attrition in-class, inefficiency and more expense.
What a downer, Ms. Green is. Why discourage anyone from going into one profession or another? Many people who go to law school don't want to be lawyers going in. They want to be doctors, engineers, CPAs. It's easy in retrospect to be negative about a failed career and having made the wrong choice from the get-go.
6
Declining enrollment requires all schools to up the admission game. One way to get hapless students is to make promises that are not possible. You know, can't read, become a writer; can't do the math, become an engineer; can't study, become a doctor. Sadly, American higher education is all about retention, and almost nothing about measuring student learning outcomes. Just say it's so, and it's so!
1
It's diificult to correlate a desire or a despair to take the LSAT test, success in law school and satisfaction with being an attorney.
Because the writer was unhappy as a practicing attorney is anectdotal proof of nothing. I believe that more dentists commit suicide than any other group. As she herself demonstrates a law degree allows folks to be successful in myriad professions that are not dircectly related to the practice of law. Which she be where she is today without her J.D.?
Because the writer was unhappy as a practicing attorney is anectdotal proof of nothing. I believe that more dentists commit suicide than any other group. As she herself demonstrates a law degree allows folks to be successful in myriad professions that are not dircectly related to the practice of law. Which she be where she is today without her J.D.?
2
Last year, I spent the morning in a simple traffic court. While waiting I saw at least 4 cases brought up before the judge- clients who had paid attorneys to represent them. In that short span of 30 minutes I was astounded by the lack of preparation and experience by these state barred, professional lawyers! And this was traffic court! Now I know the "how and why" innocent people are convicted and shuffled off to jail. I don't think "dumbing down" the barrier to entry is a very good idea.
4
"To be fair, some people truly savor the privilege of being a member of the bar. They proudly tack on “Esquire” at the end of their names when introducing themselves at parties or asking to speak with a restaurant manager."
Nobody, anywhere, does this. Ever. And if they did, it would be incorrect. Esquire is something that is put after a name in writing. It is not something you say or call someone.
Nobody, anywhere, does this. Ever. And if they did, it would be incorrect. Esquire is something that is put after a name in writing. It is not something you say or call someone.
30
My story is a bit different. At the end of undergrad, as a PolySci major I thought (was told?) that my next option was Law School. I was warned that the LSAT was brutal, and I let my fear of failure win. I also wasn't thrilled by the idea of spending another 3 years in school, and wanted to "get on with my real life". Ten years in retail followed, then non-profit and finally local government work. It's there that I've discovered that I do indeed have a proclivity for legal gymnastics. But now as I turn 50, that ship has most certainly sailed. I would never recoup a law school investment, given the law I'd want to practice. Now I see that in undergrad I lacked directed career guidance. I had professors who saw the spark, but none who helped me understand my options. I floundered for nearly 15 years after graduation, and see my choice to not attend law school as a defining moment in my life.
7
Sara, it seems you have decided twice not to attend law school. Was it the first (in your 20's) or second (in your 50's) choice that will be the defining moment in your life? You have 25 or 30 good years left to answer that question. Good Luck!
As a Political Science major myself I completely agree. My undergrad university was excellent and my professors phenomenal, but no career guidance whatsoever. I actually wanted to put off my "real life" and so ended up in an M.A. program that was great but really just cost me tens of thousands and then tried a doctoral program with which I wasn't enamored almost immediately. I semi regret not having gone to law school but feel that ship has sailed for me too (I'm 37) mainly because of the cost. Political Science is not a nursing program where you become a nurse or an Education major where you know you will be a teacher, it has endless possibilities but definitely should be accompanied by solid career guidance from the administration.
2
I practiced maritime law from 1979 until retirement last year. I started the specialty from the inside, working before law school as a secretary in a small maritime firm.
In maritime, everyone knows each other, and reputation is key, especially reputation for honesty, being an honest broker, knowing one's files, and knowing when to fell a client that he/she/it (corporate) doesn't have the documentation to make out a case.
Sadly, this is changing, and law is now a form of bullying, where the people who can hire the biggest gun win and justice goes by the wayside.
Sad is an understatement.
In maritime, everyone knows each other, and reputation is key, especially reputation for honesty, being an honest broker, knowing one's files, and knowing when to fell a client that he/she/it (corporate) doesn't have the documentation to make out a case.
Sadly, this is changing, and law is now a form of bullying, where the people who can hire the biggest gun win and justice goes by the wayside.
Sad is an understatement.
9
I've been a lawyer now for almost 40 years and, all things considered, I have no regrets. As I now contemplate retirement, I wonder if I can, after all these decades, shrug off "thinking like a lawyer" and get back to the person I was pre-law school: someone whose view of the world was more poetic, romantic and intuitive. Maybe, and if so I will ride into the sunset a happy man. But I'm not unhappy with the person my legal training made me: sharp, clear-minded, articulate, a word smith when setting pen to paper, and a lover of (on occasion, even a fighter for) justice. Maybe I was just lucky, but the work I've done as lawyer, and the professional relationships I've had, have been, with some distasteful exceptions, satisfying and productive. The world is full of fools and knaves. Becoming a lawyer doesn't expose you to them any more than any other line of work.
20
I write this as I sit in my office on a Sunday afternoon working on a complicated complaint to be filed in federal court this week. I have been doing this for 37 years, and will shortly be 70. I am not planning to stop anytime soon. I have worked in the public side as well as in big law firms in NYC. I went out on my own in 1993, and have never looked back. I cannot imagine doing anything else. My sentiments may be heretical given the comments on this article, but I love what I do and will not apologize for it. My wife is an attorney (my partner)., and my youngest daughter is about to go to law school after starting school wanting to be a singer. I bless this profession for providing me with daily challenges that pay well and provide more than enough satisfaction.
10
My mom had a teriffic lawyer who passed the bar in 1940. In 1978 my sister who was accepted at a few good law schools asked him about working as a lawyer. He said that law schools don't turn out lawyers anymore, they turn out people who know the law. He said that less than 2 weeks after he took his first job he was in court arguing a case. When he asked a senior partner if they thought it was wise to send a brand new lawyer to court they said, "You graduated from law school, passed the bar, now we need to see what kind of lawyer you are." He said it was pretty clear that this was a make it or break it case, meaning lose and you might need a new job. He told my sister that she would have to make that choice herself, but that none of his kids had followed him into law. in the end she went into business and has never regretted it.
4
Harvard has been talking about dropping the LSAT and/or GMAT for years! And perhaps adding its own, specifically-Harvard-based tests instead.
Why? Because Havard is Harvard, and always thinking it's unique and special among universities. How better to prove you're unique and special than by having your own, private test? (The development of which would cost a lot of money, which many other places couldn't afford, and also probably involve a quiet deal with a test-prep giant like Kaplan.)
And other ("lesser") schools drop the LSAT to get attention that way and position themselves as standing out from the pack. Just like the schools who made the SAT optional. Brilliant marketing--nothing more!
Why? Because Havard is Harvard, and always thinking it's unique and special among universities. How better to prove you're unique and special than by having your own, private test? (The development of which would cost a lot of money, which many other places couldn't afford, and also probably involve a quiet deal with a test-prep giant like Kaplan.)
And other ("lesser") schools drop the LSAT to get attention that way and position themselves as standing out from the pack. Just like the schools who made the SAT optional. Brilliant marketing--nothing more!
2
For information only and not to present myself as an expert on anything, I have an MBA and a JD. As my father said on many of an occasion, college does not make you smart. He was a very smart man.
In most eyes, a law school education is a means to an end i.e. becoming a lawyer. But it is more than that. The study of law forces its students to think in a logical manner and to present one's arguments in such a manner. An MBA does not emphasize that strictness of thinking, but provides one with the tools to function in a specific role in a business setting.
Almost no college major will provide you with the real life experience that you will face. In my case, I practiced law for 2 months before I recognized that it was the most boring thing to me. I went into the business world where I remain until this day.
I would not trade my law education for anything. I am thankful for it, because it has given me as much if not more success in the business world as my MBA. The LSAT is no predictor of success because a law degree opens up many more possibilities than becoming a lawyer.
In most eyes, a law school education is a means to an end i.e. becoming a lawyer. But it is more than that. The study of law forces its students to think in a logical manner and to present one's arguments in such a manner. An MBA does not emphasize that strictness of thinking, but provides one with the tools to function in a specific role in a business setting.
Almost no college major will provide you with the real life experience that you will face. In my case, I practiced law for 2 months before I recognized that it was the most boring thing to me. I went into the business world where I remain until this day.
I would not trade my law education for anything. I am thankful for it, because it has given me as much if not more success in the business world as my MBA. The LSAT is no predictor of success because a law degree opens up many more possibilities than becoming a lawyer.
3
Law school was a next step I had declared for myself in high school and never stopped to re-evaluate whether I still wanted it when I found myself there. Although I found satisfying the challenge of LSAT logic games, I knew I did not want to be a lawyer within one month of law school at UCLA. Absolutely no knock on the faculty or my fellow students. They were beyond generous, emailing me notes when I skipped my first class out of sheer misery. A friend who was one year ahead of me told me law school would change the way I thought and that didn't appeal to me at all!
Apart from the LSAT, I wonder if students would be better prepared and confident in their choice if it was more common for them to work a few years before law school like many MBA students do. The more experienced law students seemed to have more purpose while those of us who had gone straight from undergrad with little to no work experience were just there because law school was the "next thing."
More than a decade later, I am still paying off my student loans from my one semester of law school - a costly mistake but one I don't regret at all. I've spent the past ten years teaching in urban high schools and now leading a non-profit. I'm happy.
Apart from the LSAT, I wonder if students would be better prepared and confident in their choice if it was more common for them to work a few years before law school like many MBA students do. The more experienced law students seemed to have more purpose while those of us who had gone straight from undergrad with little to no work experience were just there because law school was the "next thing."
More than a decade later, I am still paying off my student loans from my one semester of law school - a costly mistake but one I don't regret at all. I've spent the past ten years teaching in urban high schools and now leading a non-profit. I'm happy.
8
Agreed wholeheartedly on the mandatory time working between undergrad and law school.
1
These are the differences between lawyers and people in other professions that require advanced studies but not high math and science skills.
Lawyers: Starting salary of $80,000 plus; work 50 hours plus per week; be in debt for $120,000; work hard for six years and have a real shot at making partner where you can earn $300,000 plus at a decent firm--bitterly complain about their job and life.
Other professions: Starting salaries of $52,000 for City Planners and $42,000 for Social Workers; work 50 hours plus per week; be in debt for $90,000; if your career works out just right, make $120,000 a year as a director--feel lucky and fortunate for having a job and a career.
My advice to lawyers: it's not your job, it's you. Learn some gratitude and have some perspective. It's called a "job" for a reason.
Lawyers: Starting salary of $80,000 plus; work 50 hours plus per week; be in debt for $120,000; work hard for six years and have a real shot at making partner where you can earn $300,000 plus at a decent firm--bitterly complain about their job and life.
Other professions: Starting salaries of $52,000 for City Planners and $42,000 for Social Workers; work 50 hours plus per week; be in debt for $90,000; if your career works out just right, make $120,000 a year as a director--feel lucky and fortunate for having a job and a career.
My advice to lawyers: it's not your job, it's you. Learn some gratitude and have some perspective. It's called a "job" for a reason.
18
Your numbers are just plucked out of the air.
4
The starting salary for most lawyers is nowhere near $120k. Most law graduates can't sniff the big firm jobs that pay north of $100k to start. Many law school graduates can't even get a job that requires bar passage because of supply/demand imbalance.
4
Yeah, and how about research scientists. Lets look at the salary of a Ph.D biochemist. Lawyers eventually earn 6 figures, but most scientists don't. There is no reason a biochemist should make less than a lawyer, sorry. Anyone can get into a law program. Try getting into and surviving a Ph.D program in a basic science field.
8
I did very well in the LSAT, scoring in the 99.6 percentile, but that had absolutely zero prediction as to how good a lawyer I would be. True, I was good at figuring things out and getting through law school with a minimum of work, but being a lawyer requires totally different skills, being able to think on your feet, having good people skills and knowing how to negotiate, all things that can't really be taught that well. Of course, once you have a law degree there are other paths you can pursue and the trick is to find your proper niche. In my case I wound up starting a computer software company
17
My wife, has over the course of many years, has served on several juries and has been uniformly disappointed it the court room performance of the lawyers handling the cases. In one case a critical fact, in the jury's mind, was over looked by both the prosecution and defense.
5
I can tell from the comments here that a lot of people, especially lawyers, desperately want the author's perspective to be wrong. Sadly, it's not. I thought it was no longer controversial to say that we have way too many law schools churning out way too many law school graduates these days. Law school is unique among grad programs in its combination of expense and uncertain job prospects. It's beyond silly to assert that some magical sense of "doing justice" or "choosing a job that you're happy doing" is all that it will take to rescue the thousands of people who attended law school but will never work as a lawyer.
19
speaking as a graduate of a top 10 law school this is entirely true. no one in their right mind should become a lawyer
10
I really did it to "get justice for others": what I did though was was to move piles of cash from individual A to individual B.
Go into poverty law if you want to help, and then be prepared to be paid little, work hard, have ungrateful clients who don't take your advice, and the gov't constantly threaten to cut your already tiny budgets.
Lawyers are tools of the rich to enrich and protect themselves. It ain't about justice.
Ask OJ.
Go into poverty law if you want to help, and then be prepared to be paid little, work hard, have ungrateful clients who don't take your advice, and the gov't constantly threaten to cut your already tiny budgets.
Lawyers are tools of the rich to enrich and protect themselves. It ain't about justice.
Ask OJ.
7
I actually think this is a good move if the goal is to expand the available candidates. The GRE can be used for a variety of graduate school programs (I took it prior to my MS in engineering; my wife, before applying for Ph.D. programs in Biology). The LSAT is only for law school, and thus for students interested in graduate degrees, you have to make a choice what to prepare/focus on. I wound up taking the LSAT and going to law school/being a lawyer before returning to engineering, but I knew of a couple of classmates in undergrad who didn't because they weren't sure if they wanted to pursue law school or a graduate degree in a semi-related field (public policy usually).
The bigger problem is that the world doesn't need more lawyers. Or at least, not lawyers who don't want to actually practice the law. I know I never fell in love with the job, and I think many others sort of wandered into it because it was there and had the promise of a lucrative career (the tiny print about how rare those opportunities were for people was usually glossed over). Schools like Harvard and Arizona won't really care; they'll get good candidates anyway. But there are lots of 3rd+ tier law schools that can't promise great job prospects for the bulk of their graduates and still charge extremely high fees. That's an ongoing problem.
The bigger problem is that the world doesn't need more lawyers. Or at least, not lawyers who don't want to actually practice the law. I know I never fell in love with the job, and I think many others sort of wandered into it because it was there and had the promise of a lucrative career (the tiny print about how rare those opportunities were for people was usually glossed over). Schools like Harvard and Arizona won't really care; they'll get good candidates anyway. But there are lots of 3rd+ tier law schools that can't promise great job prospects for the bulk of their graduates and still charge extremely high fees. That's an ongoing problem.
8
There are a glut of law schools in the US. I live in FL, and there are 11 in this state alone. Graduates from the lower-tier law schools usually fit into two categories: (1) those who cannot pass the Bar; and (2) those who pass the bar but are unable to find work (in law or out of it) at a salary that allows them to repay their loans and build a life for themselves. For those who don't pass the Bar, frankly, they could have - and should have - been weeded out at the entry of law school, not at the exit after they've borrowed six figures and wasted three years for a degree that is useless to them. There should be higher barriers to entry (and fewer law schools), thus ensuring that all law school graduates (1) have the intellectual chops to ably represent their clients; and (2) can find a job to do so. The ABA has the power of accreditation to make these reforms, but for some reason, it does not.
44
The LSAT "Games" section is a high hurdle, and a pointless and ridiculous one at that. Good riddance to the LSAT requirement, I say. I've been a lawyer for 40 years, and while other sections of the test involve skills that I use everyday, I can't think of one thing I did over my entire career that involved anything approaching the thought process of the games section. with the possible exception of doing the NYT crossword puzzle on the LIRR on the way home from the office. I will add that I did litigation, appellate work, agency practice, legislative drafting, and trial work in various phases of my career. I just wonder how many potentially great lawyers gave up on law school (or couldn't get in to a top school) due to this inane section, which, BTW, was adopted only because the "games" were relatively easy and cheap and easy to produce compared to other question types.
12
Harvard is probably the third most difficult law school in the country to be admitted into, behind Yale and Stanford. This seems to be a ploy to increase the number of applicants , and thereby decease its admission rate, which is currently nearly double that of Yale and Stanford (because Harvard's class size is much larger).
11
In a perfect world, all citizens would have a top-notch legal education and admission to the bar, whether they practiced or not.
1
Lawyers, lawyers everywhere, but the average person goes to the internet for legal advice because they cannot afford to see a lawyer. Free consultations aside, if you are hurt - physically or emotionally or financially - most lawyers cannot afford to take your case.
13
I was a teacher for 6 years until I started a family and needed to make more money. I aced the LSAT's and got into Harvard, where my grades were good. The LSAT's told me what I needed to know. It was a great predictor of legal aptitude for someone who had spent 6 years teaching history.
6
(And a purported Harvard grad uses "LSAT's"????)
Just do NOT accept this if you go through the New York City school system as you may wind up with a lawyer who cannot read or write.
2
I decided on a career as a lawyer in high school. I had no family members who were lawyers, and I didn't know any. The first lawyer I met was my future father-in-law, who informed his son that there was no chance that I would ever graduate from law school - he didn't think I could take the pressure. He was wrong (and years later was happy to be able to tell me he was wrong). I've been in the profession 32 years now, and have never regretted my choice of career. Sure, there have been low points - but I've watched my husband go through low points in his career as an engineer, too. But if you find you're really unhappy, re-invent yourself. There are publications out there with suggestions of what to do with a law degree other than being a lawyer.
3
Ever consider your future FIL was testing you when he said you'd never make it? Or perhaps dear FIL was just big headed AND thought he was higher than all..as 1 in law?
It seems to me that the main purpose of the LSAT is to weed out a few of the less serious law school applicants and, in that pursuit it is useful.
There is nothing wrong with going to law school if you re unsure if you want to be a lawyer. It is utter folly to go to law school if you are unsure and incur the huge debt so many graduates have when the receive their law degree.
I practiced law for 30 years and watched a steady deterioration of the legal profession from top to bottom. The LSAT is irrelevant. It may be that the student debt which requires some lawyers to remain in a kind of debtors prison - practicing law - is the culprit because practicing law when you don't like it is a hard, stressful, unhappy and ultimately unhealthy life. It's not good for the lawyer and it's not good for society.
Try to figure out who you are first. And don't bother studying for the LSAT, it's a waste of time and money. Like law school might be.
There is nothing wrong with going to law school if you re unsure if you want to be a lawyer. It is utter folly to go to law school if you are unsure and incur the huge debt so many graduates have when the receive their law degree.
I practiced law for 30 years and watched a steady deterioration of the legal profession from top to bottom. The LSAT is irrelevant. It may be that the student debt which requires some lawyers to remain in a kind of debtors prison - practicing law - is the culprit because practicing law when you don't like it is a hard, stressful, unhappy and ultimately unhealthy life. It's not good for the lawyer and it's not good for society.
Try to figure out who you are first. And don't bother studying for the LSAT, it's a waste of time and money. Like law school might be.
2
Open up Law school to everyone. Maybe we will get some good ones that way?
1
I've taken the GRE. It is the same level as the SAT, and for a college grad should be trivially simple. I studied for about an hour and got close to a perfect score. The fact that Harvard took the LSAT off the requirements is to make the application process way easier. Why they want to do this I don't know. But I find it interesting they have recently been pilloried for underrepresented minorities.
6
I think you answered your own question. Huh?
2
Dropping the LSAT will probably not lower the quality of lawyers. You still have to get through law school which requires intellectual application and you have to pass the bar to be able to practice. I never found the LSAT score had anything to do with law school.
ms green has it right...the number of lawyers in place because the path offered least resistance is significant...anecdotal evidence form here confirms that the proportion of failed actors, writers and other creatives, gumming up the law in private practice and in the even-less-resistance ranks of district and city attorney's offices passes chance...from this desk, over years of teaching in college, university and conservatory performing arts programs, the number of requests for law school recommendations after a mere year and from two-to five years after venturing into the uncertain waters of self-expression, is tops, categorically...the certainties of the law hold more appeal than the anxieties of risk of that are part of every artist's life...and the bitterness of many who've taken the triple-creme is palpable.
1
Law school provides a valuable education that can be used in any number of fields other than law. The law can be the intersection of many different pursuits - public policy, environment, health, business, education, etc. Frankly, it can be a lot more interesting than the practice of law, especially once you get past the core curriculum and into electives. So for those considering whether to go to law school, know that there's much that can be gained from it even if you decide not to practice. Whether it "pencils out" for you will depend on your individual circumstances, but don't discount the value of the intellectual rigor and analysis that you'll learn and have for the rest of your life.
1
Practicing lawyer of 40 years here. Dropping the LSAT requirement is a mistake, particularly in light of college grade inflation. The test is an objective, level playing field that can weed out students who took "gut" UG courses and achieved high GPA but have little analytical and reasoning ability. And conversely the test allows those with that ability to shine, regardless of UG GPA. Do we have too many lawyers? Too many unskilled, incompetent lawyers.
10
well, there are lawyers and there are lawyers. Some graduate from Stanford or Yale or Harvard or Boalt and work their way up from the top into the sinews of finance, politics and society.
Others, from Stetson, Golden Gate, Touro and John Marshall take jobs in government, non-profits or 3-person law firms and spend many years covering their school debt.
The LSAT is the gatekeeper. Like the bar exam, it excludes people who would make fine advocates, and admits people who test well, but won't.
Others, from Stetson, Golden Gate, Touro and John Marshall take jobs in government, non-profits or 3-person law firms and spend many years covering their school debt.
The LSAT is the gatekeeper. Like the bar exam, it excludes people who would make fine advocates, and admits people who test well, but won't.
7
As a lawyer who has shared Ms. Green's experience as an associate in a large urban firm, I relate integrally to what she is saying. However, the law affords many and varied opportunities to achieve one's goals and desires, and working 60 hours a week or more in a New York firm is not the only option. After pursuing a number of alternative opportunities to use my legal education, I wound up becoming an international corporate attorney for a small, intensely international and specialized consortium company. I don't know whether the LSAT would have pointed me in that direction: I think that test does zero in on the requirements for big city corporate private practice. But the possibilities in the law go well beyond those!
5
In summary: I errantly chose an education path that did not fit me and now criticize it through revised testing means.
Have some dry bread with your sour grapes.
Have some dry bread with your sour grapes.
4
Lawyers are the lowest. This will lower the bar even further.
There are two professions that Lawyers and Dentists have in common: They both complain about the oversupply of professionals in their respective professions, yet the very potential clients who badly need their services are unable to afford their services!
38
You can't make a living providing services to people who can't afford to pay for services.
2
BTW, complete de-funding of legal services for the needy is on the budgetary Trump chopping block!
1
the current bar is low enough.
3
Great now we are dumbing down lawyers, I think we have enough of them.
2
I am confused about what Ms. Green's point actually is, but am alarmed that someone with an education in the law can say in the same paragraph that "most lawyers" pursued a law degree as the path of least resistance while admitting that this conclusion is anecdotal because she is "not a math person." This is not the kind of logic I would want in an attorney representing me.
For many years, I have worked with lawyers in South Florida who, as one law firm likes to say, are pursuing their "passion for justice." I know State Attorneys who are driven by that passion, and victims of horrific tragedies who owe their survival to attorneys who made the case for holding wrongdoers accountable. (Most of them love what they do - although I am not a math person!) And in my community, many of us volunteer alongside attorneys whose commitment to helping people extends far outside, as well as inside, the courtroom.
Yes, this is a grueling profession that requires long work hours and often-tedious preparation, which argues that the LSATs may prove to be an excellent way to separate the wheat from the chaff. And as for the low-fat Brie, for many people it could prove to be a healthier choice.
For many years, I have worked with lawyers in South Florida who, as one law firm likes to say, are pursuing their "passion for justice." I know State Attorneys who are driven by that passion, and victims of horrific tragedies who owe their survival to attorneys who made the case for holding wrongdoers accountable. (Most of them love what they do - although I am not a math person!) And in my community, many of us volunteer alongside attorneys whose commitment to helping people extends far outside, as well as inside, the courtroom.
Yes, this is a grueling profession that requires long work hours and often-tedious preparation, which argues that the LSATs may prove to be an excellent way to separate the wheat from the chaff. And as for the low-fat Brie, for many people it could prove to be a healthier choice.
4
I just retired after 39 years in the practice of law. I hated law school. Nor do I have any idea what I scored on the LSAT, it was so long ago. I do know that I helped literally thousands of people (banker's boxes full of old files) and avoided the Grievance Commission. You can always tell a good lawyer from the bad by the smiles on the faces of the good ones. The quirky ones, those with the 40-year-old briefcases! All I know is that there was never enough time to do the work. It seems that I never had the luxury of regret, because it all went by in a blur. I guess you might say that I loved what I did for a living. What else is there?
1
"The move might succeed in expanding the pool of applicants. But here’s what it won’t do: increase the number of people in law school who actually want to be lawyers."
Accepting the GRE for law school is one more way to dumb down American education. Although I took the GRE and did pretty well, I am not sure I would have been so lucky with the LSAT. Do we need smart lawyers? Let's hope we can produce enough of them to take on Trump and reverse the damage he'll do.
Recently the Times has run articles saying that requirements for teachers are too difficult because students of color aren't passing at the same rate as whites. Alas, since the late 1960s, we have been steadily eroding the quality of our public schools because we want everyone to feel successful, even the kids who don't care about being successful. And of course we won't steer them into trade schools because we believe everyone can be a surgeon.
That sort of policy has produced several generations of high school and even college graduates who can't string together a complex sentence or write a coherent paragraph, and they've been going into teaching. Well meaning, even devoted, yes. But not what they might have been. Politicians and professors of education have let them down. So have, of course, their parents.
Then again, in our white heartland, scorn for education is waved proudly, like a flag.
More Americans believe in ghosts than in the laws of gravity. Think about it.
Accepting the GRE for law school is one more way to dumb down American education. Although I took the GRE and did pretty well, I am not sure I would have been so lucky with the LSAT. Do we need smart lawyers? Let's hope we can produce enough of them to take on Trump and reverse the damage he'll do.
Recently the Times has run articles saying that requirements for teachers are too difficult because students of color aren't passing at the same rate as whites. Alas, since the late 1960s, we have been steadily eroding the quality of our public schools because we want everyone to feel successful, even the kids who don't care about being successful. And of course we won't steer them into trade schools because we believe everyone can be a surgeon.
That sort of policy has produced several generations of high school and even college graduates who can't string together a complex sentence or write a coherent paragraph, and they've been going into teaching. Well meaning, even devoted, yes. But not what they might have been. Politicians and professors of education have let them down. So have, of course, their parents.
Then again, in our white heartland, scorn for education is waved proudly, like a flag.
More Americans believe in ghosts than in the laws of gravity. Think about it.
2
The logic puzzles are a great introduction to the abstract thinking you have to engage in as a lawyer-- what is the answer? Why is this not the answer? What does this piece of information tell me, and what else can I infer from it? What information do I have, what information do I need, what can I derive from the information that is *not* there? Sure, you can do test prep and practice them, break them down, learn how they work, and you should-- that's essentially what you're doing when you analyze statutory construction.
And, yes, one should think long and hard before enrolling in law school. You're only able to get through law school is because you don't know how miserable it's going to be (the studying, at least-- I met the best friends of my life there). What made it bearable was knowing why I wanted to be a lawyer, and I was lucky to finally land my dream job as a public defender 18 months after I graduated in 2004-- but I know plenty of people who chose law school as a real world-deferral method and spent years regretting it.
And, yes, one should think long and hard before enrolling in law school. You're only able to get through law school is because you don't know how miserable it's going to be (the studying, at least-- I met the best friends of my life there). What made it bearable was knowing why I wanted to be a lawyer, and I was lucky to finally land my dream job as a public defender 18 months after I graduated in 2004-- but I know plenty of people who chose law school as a real world-deferral method and spent years regretting it.
1
It may be true that for many law school students law is a default option, but this seems true for many graduate programs, including education, social work, and psychology-to name just a few. It is difficult for young people to make a decision about what career they want without having experience with the daily grind of the work. As for respect, the old days of certain professions coming with a built in expectation of respect seem long gone. While I worked in a hospital, even the MD's at the top of the so-called totem pole routinely complained of how their profession/position lacked the stature and authority they expected it would. Some people have clarity and focus from a young age about what career they want to pursue -good for them. For most of us though it seems to be more of a bumpy trajectory of trial and error.
3
As an attorney practicing law for more than 30 years in New York, with a very large firm, two small ones, as an ADA, and now mostly in criminal defense, I have been fortunate to learn that unless you like the day to day work you will be miserable. Just getting a lot of money will never satisfy any normal human being, and the results will often be unhappy uneven performance. So if the LSAT really measures how much you like (not are good at) the basic tasks of a lawyer, it is a very valuable tool and should not be discarded so some profit-driven schools can admit more students without lowering their “standing.”
3
To suggest that the principle reason that lawyers are unhappy is because they simply defaulted into going to law school - suggesting that the profession is perfectly fine but not a fit for many - is an over-simplification of a complex problem. I'd suggest that the author research the changes in the profession over time and talk to older attorneys who have witnessed the changes in the profession. That will tell you more about why attorneys might be less satisfied than in years past with their work. My 25 years of practice have taught me that the legal system reflects society - including it's ills.
6
When I went to McGill law school in the early 70s, I did not have to write LSAT.I had a wonderful career and ended it off as a judge. I have known exceptional people prevented from becoming a lawyers because they could not pass LSAT. I have known incredibly incompetent lawyers who did pass LSAT. From my experience, LSAT it's nothing but an obstacle where a private company makes a lot of money for no other purpose than to pass people who know how to write exams. It's not LSAT that determines whether you'll be a good lawyer or not, it's the work you will do after you become a lawyer.
5
I know nothing about the LSAT, law school, or the joys and sorrows of the legal profession. But I do know that low-fat Brie should be illegal.
36
I am a retired lawyer. Neither the LSAT nor for that matter the Bar exam has much to do with practicing law. They are just tools to measure smarts - hurdles if you will. My legal career was marvelously interesting, challenging and intellectually rewarding - I can't think of anything I would have liked better.
9
If you think the LSAT is useless, wait until you meet MCLE.
So-called "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" is required for ongoing law licensure by about 40 states. It consists mainly of somnolent seminars presented by other lawyers who often know less than the conscripted attendees. Its asserted goals are public protection and improvement of the profession. In forty years, however, not a shred of compelling evidence has shown those goals to be achieved by mandated participation.
MCLE does make money for state bar associations, though. It allows legal pooh-bahs to brag about doing something important. It is, in other words, an unseemly mating of cash cow and public relations bull.
With all that said, law can be a wonderful profession. It's even worth jumping through silly, useless hoops to pursue.
So-called "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" is required for ongoing law licensure by about 40 states. It consists mainly of somnolent seminars presented by other lawyers who often know less than the conscripted attendees. Its asserted goals are public protection and improvement of the profession. In forty years, however, not a shred of compelling evidence has shown those goals to be achieved by mandated participation.
MCLE does make money for state bar associations, though. It allows legal pooh-bahs to brag about doing something important. It is, in other words, an unseemly mating of cash cow and public relations bull.
With all that said, law can be a wonderful profession. It's even worth jumping through silly, useless hoops to pursue.
5
I may be in a minority of one, but:
1. I entered a top-ranked law school at age 34 and graduated at age 37 and enjoyed the law school process (after having acquired a PhD in science in my 20s and thereafter having done academic research and gotten tired of writing grant proposals).
2. I spent five years thereafter as an associate in biglaw firms, and enjoyed lawyering but not being an associate in a lawfirm and being told what to do by its partners. I found lawfirms to be stultifying.
3. I left biglaw and eventually started and ran my own solo specialty law firm, which was a true delight and coincidentally remarkably profitable.
4. I retired two years ago and am now enjoying other pursuits.
5. My son entered law school in his 30s, graduated, and has spent the last five years since then lawyering and having a good time of it.
6. Lawyering for me has been a delightful opportunity to have fun and do good and do well. If anything, I think it worked for me and is working for my son because in both cases it was a second career started in our 30s, after having spent 10+ years doing something else and after doing some growing up. Had I gone to law school soon after college, it would have been a big mistake.
1. I entered a top-ranked law school at age 34 and graduated at age 37 and enjoyed the law school process (after having acquired a PhD in science in my 20s and thereafter having done academic research and gotten tired of writing grant proposals).
2. I spent five years thereafter as an associate in biglaw firms, and enjoyed lawyering but not being an associate in a lawfirm and being told what to do by its partners. I found lawfirms to be stultifying.
3. I left biglaw and eventually started and ran my own solo specialty law firm, which was a true delight and coincidentally remarkably profitable.
4. I retired two years ago and am now enjoying other pursuits.
5. My son entered law school in his 30s, graduated, and has spent the last five years since then lawyering and having a good time of it.
6. Lawyering for me has been a delightful opportunity to have fun and do good and do well. If anything, I think it worked for me and is working for my son because in both cases it was a second career started in our 30s, after having spent 10+ years doing something else and after doing some growing up. Had I gone to law school soon after college, it would have been a big mistake.
18
I was very disheartened to read Ms. Green's comments. No where did
she mention that her desire to become an attorney was inspired by a respect and love for the concept of justice. After almost 50 years of practicing law, I still remember the 6 year old little girl who decided that the concept of justice required I become a lawyer - and I don't regret it, LSAT notwithstanding.
she mention that her desire to become an attorney was inspired by a respect and love for the concept of justice. After almost 50 years of practicing law, I still remember the 6 year old little girl who decided that the concept of justice required I become a lawyer - and I don't regret it, LSAT notwithstanding.
77
I believe that's sort of the point. If you're passionate about law and justice, and know that you absolutely want to pursue a law career, then the LSAT will not stop you. People who really want law careers because they are genuinely interested in them are likely to work to hard to succeed at achieving that goal, including studying for the LSAT and working hard to get into a good law school and find a job in a legal profession they're passionate about. On the other hand, there are people drifting somewhat aimlessly through an undergraduate degree, who aren't really sure what they want to pursue, but think that a law degree won't be too difficult, or will pay really well. These people are likely to be less motivated to study for the LSAT, because they aren't as invested in achieving a law degree. Conversely, the GRE is required for many many other graduate programs, and even people who aren't sure they want to be a lawyer are likely to take it if they're considering pursuing any graduate degree. Law schools accepting the GRE leads to students saying "hey, why not submit an application with my GRE score to a law school just for kicks, because law sounds like it would make me lots of money". Lowering the barrier of entry increases the number of applicants who aren't passionate about a law career, and end up miserable in a meticulous job they didn't especially want.
2
I don't see the need to expand the applicant pool. I go to what most consider a very good law school, and only slightly over half of my class will get jobs in law. That is ridiculous! A highly ranked law school cannot get its students jobs in law. Every day I pity my classmates with bad grades and no scholarship who will never get out of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt they took on. And we are looking to expand the applicant pool? The only reason for this is to maintain jobs for law school professors and administrators by expanding the amount of fees brought in by applications. This is a shame. The number of law schools should be slashed by a third, but that will never happen, as law school professors would lose their jobs. Instead, the government gives out millions in loans to subsidize those jobs
105
Were any of your classmates forced to attend your very good law school?
Nobody wins when standards are lowered so more minorities can attend. The quality of services goes down; those who truly qualify based on merit but are not accepted are gravely injusticed; and the biggest losers are truly qualified minorities because their success and service will always be looked upon with suspicion, even service avoidance. One set of high standards for ALL while offering help to those who need it to achieve those standards is the only way forward
9
Maybe we should adopt the British nomenclature and call lawyers either "solicitors" or "barristers." The former are mere clerks and counselors.
The later go to court, fight and win or lose in full public view.
It's like my old friend, Cdr. Maxwell, said of the Navy: you're either a naval aviator or a ship driver.
The later go to court, fight and win or lose in full public view.
It's like my old friend, Cdr. Maxwell, said of the Navy: you're either a naval aviator or a ship driver.
6
So now institutions of higher learning are lowering standards for more diversity. Then it must be a general consensus by the Educational powers that be that minorities are not as intelligent as majority. I find this rubbish. A larger number of minorities may lack the drive or motivation early on when it comes to education, but the major issue is not intelligence.
1
I guess the misery lawyers face is why ex-lawyers refer to themselves as "recovering lawyers."
3
No, I refer to myself as a "recovering lawyer" only to indicate that I'm doing other things now. Often it puts people at ease when I introduce myself that way in settings where they don't expect to find a lawyer. Also it sometimes helps me to avoid situations such as, "I have this friend who..."!
I had an incredibly interesting, varied, and fulfilling career, almost all of which was possible because of my law degree and because I live in Alaska.
I had an incredibly interesting, varied, and fulfilling career, almost all of which was possible because of my law degree and because I live in Alaska.
Please spare us gross generalizations re the legal profession (lawyers are notoriously dissatisfied and depressed). And folks in other professions are not! Have you ever talked to a public school teacher at Los Angeles Unified or San Franciso Unified schools? Just one example. I worked in the marketing department at a BigLaw in San Francisco for several years before deciding to go to law school. I was routinely in awe to see some utterly brilliant and analytically challenging work at play literally on daily basis. And that is precisely what prompted me to become a lawyer.
Who made you an expert dispensing opinion regarding the efficacy of the GRE or the legal profession in general. I was disappointed to see this article, lacking any empirical evidence whatsoever, published in this newspaper.
Who made you an expert dispensing opinion regarding the efficacy of the GRE or the legal profession in general. I was disappointed to see this article, lacking any empirical evidence whatsoever, published in this newspaper.
7
I don't get the point of this article: "but I had an unusually positive experience. Even so, I eventually quit, to pursue the TV writing career I’d always wanted. But not after spending — some would say wasting — 10 years and six figures to get there." The principal (only?) point of this piece seems to be that the author regrets going to law school without thinking about other possibilities.
The American legal system is dysfunctional. That's one reason many lawyers are dissatisfied. Legal education has many faults; the LSAT is hardly the most severe. Before running this piece in the Review, the Times should have insisted on substance, or it should have published it in another section.
The American legal system is dysfunctional. That's one reason many lawyers are dissatisfied. Legal education has many faults; the LSAT is hardly the most severe. Before running this piece in the Review, the Times should have insisted on substance, or it should have published it in another section.
10
I’m a lawyer, recently retired. Seems all the author is saying here is that after practicing law for 10 yrs, he either didn’t like it, was not very good at it, fell into something else that paid more or was more fun, so he moved on. So? It's good that people can explore, be curious and change careers.
The author says he has regrets. But what do his regrets have to do with the decision of law schools' to use either the LSAT or GREs for admission. Seems something else is going on with the author. Why else denigrate yourself and compare your decision to go to law school with brie cheese, dating services and binging on Netflix. Speak for yourself Mr. Green! Most people I know made the decision to go to law school with purpose and seriousness. And who are you to “save” a “starry-eyed student” from pursuing his or her dreams. The worse than can happen to that student is that 10 years from now, that student is writing mindless TV scripts.
At least the author acknowledges that he cannot support his claim that for most lawyers, “pursing a law degree was simply the path of least resistance.” (Whatever that means.) Nor does he offer support for lawyers being “notoriously dissatisfied and depressed.” Instead, he relies on “anecdotes,” sort of like Kelleyanne Conway relying on “alternative facts.”
But as the author does note, there is a lot “angst” in practicing law. Indeed, if not, you’re not practicing law right and not representing interesting clients with challenging issues.
The author says he has regrets. But what do his regrets have to do with the decision of law schools' to use either the LSAT or GREs for admission. Seems something else is going on with the author. Why else denigrate yourself and compare your decision to go to law school with brie cheese, dating services and binging on Netflix. Speak for yourself Mr. Green! Most people I know made the decision to go to law school with purpose and seriousness. And who are you to “save” a “starry-eyed student” from pursuing his or her dreams. The worse than can happen to that student is that 10 years from now, that student is writing mindless TV scripts.
At least the author acknowledges that he cannot support his claim that for most lawyers, “pursing a law degree was simply the path of least resistance.” (Whatever that means.) Nor does he offer support for lawyers being “notoriously dissatisfied and depressed.” Instead, he relies on “anecdotes,” sort of like Kelleyanne Conway relying on “alternative facts.”
But as the author does note, there is a lot “angst” in practicing law. Indeed, if not, you’re not practicing law right and not representing interesting clients with challenging issues.
7
JR: He is a SHE.
1
"Speak for yourself, Mr. Green."
My impression is that the writer was indeed speaking for himself.
My impression is that the writer was indeed speaking for himself.
1
Private colleges can do whatever they want with private money.
But public colleges,
and private colleges spending public money,
have not only the right,
but also the obligation to society that provides the public funds,
to admit only those students who have a reasonable prospect of graduating from a reasonably rigorous curriculum of law studies and subsequently passing a reasonably rigorous bar exam.
To the extent that performance on the LSAT's correlates with graduation from a curriculum of reasonably rigorous law studies and passing thea reasonably rigorous bar exam, then the LSAT ought to remain a criteria for admission, with the higher scoring applicants getting a higher probability of admission.
But public colleges,
and private colleges spending public money,
have not only the right,
but also the obligation to society that provides the public funds,
to admit only those students who have a reasonable prospect of graduating from a reasonably rigorous curriculum of law studies and subsequently passing a reasonably rigorous bar exam.
To the extent that performance on the LSAT's correlates with graduation from a curriculum of reasonably rigorous law studies and passing thea reasonably rigorous bar exam, then the LSAT ought to remain a criteria for admission, with the higher scoring applicants getting a higher probability of admission.
7
There are a lot of interesting things to say about dropping the LSAT. For example, are LSAT scores predictive of Bar passage? Maybe less than we thought? Or is there still aggregate value in the test for the system as a whole even if Harvard doesn't need to use it?
Law school applications and admissions are down. Is that good? Has the pendulum swung enough that we no longer have a glut of esquires running around doing contract work?
What about all those JDs who work in fields other than law? Comedy writers, executives, baseball GMs...Maybe the LSAT was a relic of a time when law school meant working as a lawyer, but now it is of less utility.
But sure, let's go with no LSAT will mean more unhappy lawyers.
Law school applications and admissions are down. Is that good? Has the pendulum swung enough that we no longer have a glut of esquires running around doing contract work?
What about all those JDs who work in fields other than law? Comedy writers, executives, baseball GMs...Maybe the LSAT was a relic of a time when law school meant working as a lawyer, but now it is of less utility.
But sure, let's go with no LSAT will mean more unhappy lawyers.
3
I went to law school before LSAT was a requirement. At my law school everyone was admitted if you had any undergraduate degree. We had a large freshman class of about 100 and my graduating class was about 40. I think most dropped out because they realized law was not to their liking although some did drop out because of grades.
I went to law school by chance because I learned about this field through the Dean of the Engineering School I attended. He was a Patent Attorney before he became an administrator and shared his experience with the students. Law school provided an entry for an engineer into the Patent Law field. I recommend that field to anyone that has an engineering or other scientific background.
I went to law school by chance because I learned about this field through the Dean of the Engineering School I attended. He was a Patent Attorney before he became an administrator and shared his experience with the students. Law school provided an entry for an engineer into the Patent Law field. I recommend that field to anyone that has an engineering or other scientific background.
8
The LSAT study was grueling? What LSAT was that? And who studies for the LSAT? I'm no mental giant, but I didn't study & took it with a hangover. And passed. This whole LSAT v. GRE thing is a tempest in a teapot. We don't need more lawyers. There are too many now & most are miserable. Find a different major & go be happy. Be a minimalist. Live in a house you can afford. Buy a Ford instead of a Lexus. Send your kids to good public schools. I was a lawyer for 30 years & met maybe ten happy lawyers. Run away while you can.
48
You "passed" the LSAT? Hmmm. For a lawyer of 30 years, that is a very loose way of speaking. The LSAT is not a pass/fail exam. Are you sure you are not confusing it with the bar exam?
Who studies for the LSAT? People who try and want to succeed. And you don't pass the LSAT. You get a number that is the primary criteria for admissions. There is no such thing as a passing grade
2
Thank you. You nailed it. There are way too many lawyers in this country. Full stop. There is not enough work to sustain the lawyer population. So after spending 7 years of college and then learning how to practice law, lawyers are told, "you have to become salespersons to succeed in the law". In other words, you need to be a really good lawyer but in your spare time go out and be a salesperson to get business in the door. Save yourself some money and become a salesperson and take people out to play golf and sell whatever you sell. You will make at least as much and you won't have to actually then do work once you do your sales routine. Lawyers who are happy being lawyers? Yea right. But that's only based upon 39 years experience.
2
What makes you think the GRE is so easy that it will open up some imagined floodgate keeping those less intelligent and hardly equipped for the rigors of law school out of the applicant pool.
The GRE has a hefty section of logic puzzles plus the math. I'm wondering if you took the time to examine the GRE before writing this opinion piece.
The GRE has a hefty section of logic puzzles plus the math. I'm wondering if you took the time to examine the GRE before writing this opinion piece.
10
What logic puzzles section are you talking about? I took the GRE and LSAT recently (last summer) and have no idea what you are talking about.
There has not been a logic section on the GRE for years. The computer-based GRE has reading (arguably some of the shorter passages are of a logical reasoning-type structure), hefty contextual vocabulary, math and essays. Not so sure it is the best measure for a prospective law student, but it has certainly become a solid competitor to GMAT for a prospective business student.
What GRE does offer is flexibility of administration since it is computer-based and offered all year long. And of course, greater application options than the LSAT which is specific only to law school.
As long as LSAT remains a 4-times-per-year, paper & pencil test dinosaur, it will lose out to GRE and perhaps other options, whether or not they are as predictive or relevant for a legal education.
What GRE does offer is flexibility of administration since it is computer-based and offered all year long. And of course, greater application options than the LSAT which is specific only to law school.
As long as LSAT remains a 4-times-per-year, paper & pencil test dinosaur, it will lose out to GRE and perhaps other options, whether or not they are as predictive or relevant for a legal education.
1
Although the LSAT may prove a hurdle for some students, that does not mean it is the only means of screening out candidates or determining those that will be successful. The key is to determine why some colleges may choose to eliminate the LSAT. Is it to get up application numbers as you suggest, or is it to open the doors to applicants that don't necessarily have the free time to put in the same full-time effort prepping for the LSAT (e.g., working professionals) as those who are currently full-time students.
It is important for law schools (and any school really) to cast a wide net and then be more selective than to try and artificially narrow the pool with a standardized test that can effectively be gamed.
It is important for law schools (and any school really) to cast a wide net and then be more selective than to try and artificially narrow the pool with a standardized test that can effectively be gamed.
4
Law school is the last refuge of a scoundrel. [I got my JD degree 30 years ago.]
3
I’m constantly reminded of the comment that we have more kids studying in law schools to be lawyers than there are lawyers on Earth. If they all should achieve that certification, however will the followers of Shakespeare fulfill their sacred obligation when the crunch comes?
I’m also reminded of the interesting fact obtained as the benefit of a distaff relationship to someone employed by the legal data purveyor LexisNexis, which was that this worthy corporation maintains a California sweat-shop where hundreds of lawyers labor at $30,000 per year to organize the data its subscribers pay for through subscriptions. What’s the REAL advantage to that certification unless your name is Alan Dershowitz or you’re one of the top partners at one of our top law firms, pulling down $1250 per hour in fees?
It’s been some time now since the four-year baccalaureate degree became the replacement for a high school diploma, which has become worthless. How long before the law degree replaces the BA/BS degree, rendering THAT increasingly mass-produced commodity worthless? And what will that say about the typical holder of a J.D. and even a passed state bar exam?
Well, I understand that Uber is still looking for drivers, and you’re said to make more with them than $30,000.
Eliminating the LSAT? Strikes me as similar to maximally facilitating voting – you might get more participation, but you won’t improve the quality of participants.
I’m also reminded of the interesting fact obtained as the benefit of a distaff relationship to someone employed by the legal data purveyor LexisNexis, which was that this worthy corporation maintains a California sweat-shop where hundreds of lawyers labor at $30,000 per year to organize the data its subscribers pay for through subscriptions. What’s the REAL advantage to that certification unless your name is Alan Dershowitz or you’re one of the top partners at one of our top law firms, pulling down $1250 per hour in fees?
It’s been some time now since the four-year baccalaureate degree became the replacement for a high school diploma, which has become worthless. How long before the law degree replaces the BA/BS degree, rendering THAT increasingly mass-produced commodity worthless? And what will that say about the typical holder of a J.D. and even a passed state bar exam?
Well, I understand that Uber is still looking for drivers, and you’re said to make more with them than $30,000.
Eliminating the LSAT? Strikes me as similar to maximally facilitating voting – you might get more participation, but you won’t improve the quality of participants.
9
Richard, it does not matter, in the near future computers will be the sole authors of legal briefs, memorandums, and every other required legal document.
2
Dropping the LSAT is a purely financial move to save law schools and law school faculty salaries. That's all it is: Bring in more foreign students, and get more US students by whatever means possible.
19
I hated the LSAT.
I loathe all forms of brie and dislike most cheeses
I would intensely dislike working for a cheesemonger.
20 years out as a solo practitioner and most days I love my career. Like any other activity, satisfaction greatly depends depends on who you are and your attitude.
I loathe all forms of brie and dislike most cheeses
I would intensely dislike working for a cheesemonger.
20 years out as a solo practitioner and most days I love my career. Like any other activity, satisfaction greatly depends depends on who you are and your attitude.
9
You lost me at "dislike most cheeses".
Almost 18 years ago I more or less flipped a coin between taking the GMAT or the LSAT. (The GMAT won.)
While I've often regretted doing an MBA -- my career fell through the cracks after the 2000 dot-com bubble burst, and also everyone seems to have one these days -- this op-ed piece reinforces my suspicion that law school might've been a mistake too. I guess I should decide what I want to do when I grow up -- before I turn 60, that is.
While I've often regretted doing an MBA -- my career fell through the cracks after the 2000 dot-com bubble burst, and also everyone seems to have one these days -- this op-ed piece reinforces my suspicion that law school might've been a mistake too. I guess I should decide what I want to do when I grow up -- before I turn 60, that is.
4
Law school is not an end; it is a means. A legal education (most notably in US law schools which follow the Socratic method) instills intellectual discipline and teaches critical thinking, analysis, and writing. A law school degree confers a measure of professional credibility and opens professional doors. With this foundation, a lawyer can do just about anything with greater ease and confidence (with the exception of plumbing and wiring...which are the only two things that this particular lawyer regrets not studying).
26
ann... invites a useful comparison of professions. One approach would be seeing which professional educations lead to broad and higher responsibilities. As an engineer I found lawyers were not analytical and dismissed anyone who wasn't one of them. But, that's experience in one job. I'll claim science and engineering graduates have stronger analytical skills and poorer writing. Let's look for some data before making claims.
1
Agreed. Law school, for better or worse, trains one to tolerate more intellectual and mental pain.
1
The LSAT is not such a high hurdle - it's basically an intelligence/reading test, and most Americans do fine with it.
A high hurdle is scoring a 3.9 GPA taking the necessary science prerequisites to get into medical school.
I chose law school over medical school because it's the easier path - at least initially. I wanted one of those careers because the data showed they are well paid, relatively financially secure professions. And over the past 25 years as a lawyer I have maintained an annual income of several hundred thousand dollars. (Becoming a specialist in a needed area is key to financial success and security.)
Am I happy? Certainly the money makes life less stressful at home. And when I'm busy on an interesting case, I don't think about it.
But in a world where I have no financial obligations, would I like to try my hand as a screen writer (or even a journalist)?
You bet!
A high hurdle is scoring a 3.9 GPA taking the necessary science prerequisites to get into medical school.
I chose law school over medical school because it's the easier path - at least initially. I wanted one of those careers because the data showed they are well paid, relatively financially secure professions. And over the past 25 years as a lawyer I have maintained an annual income of several hundred thousand dollars. (Becoming a specialist in a needed area is key to financial success and security.)
Am I happy? Certainly the money makes life less stressful at home. And when I'm busy on an interesting case, I don't think about it.
But in a world where I have no financial obligations, would I like to try my hand as a screen writer (or even a journalist)?
You bet!
13
Most Americans do fine on the LSAT?
The vast majority of Americans I don't even know what it is.
The vast majority of Americans I don't even know what it is.
2
As a lawyer for more than 40 years I cannot fathom the snidery of this author about the calling that attracted people of the quality of Thurgood Marshall , Pauli Murray and Barack Obama.
9
Honestly, what does the LSAT have to do with lawyer misery? All it represents is another fake marker of what portends success in the field. LSATs are what direct you to higher tiered schools. Law schools direct you to big law prospects depending on the school and/or placing well in class standing. Bar exams try to separate the wheat from chaff in the licensing process. BUT not one of these efforts succeeds in its mission, nor are they useful predictors. They are part of the self-sustaining and entirely anachronistic system. If we want more satisfied lawyers, then bring back the apprentice system. Give young law students a real chance to see what a practice is like before they commit upfront, both financially and psychically.
137
This is the great liberal fallacy: that screening exams are "fake." LSATs have a solid correlation with success in and after law school. That's why they're used as a screening device. Of course, they're not perfect, but what's the proffered alternative -- picking names out of a hat? GREs may provide a similar correlation and, therfore, open applications to candidates who took a different screening exam. It's a fair question. But please stop with the pure fiction/ignorance that screening exams are useless.
6
The LSAT is an intellectual killer, having looked at the test runs done by family members as prep. It was surprising to hear that Harvard was dropping the requirement but they probably have lots of other qualifiers to winnow out the unqualified. I believe that for a lot of lower rank law schools (who are more interested in bums on seats) the requirement is already more observed in the breach than the observance. And for a lot of the students at these schools it's going to be very hard to get a good job in the law after graduation.
16
I am unfamiliar with the GRE, but he LSAT measures an individual's ability to logically solve problems, which is what a good attorney should be able to do. What good is it for a law student to be exceptional at memorizing case law, but lacks the critical thinking skill necessary to glean the logic behind the decisions.
IDK, maybe GRE addresses this n their evaluation process, but since the educational trend over the last 30 years has seemed more intent on dumbing down the necessary requirements, I would not bet the rent that the GRE is an improvement over the LSAT.
IDK, maybe GRE addresses this n their evaluation process, but since the educational trend over the last 30 years has seemed more intent on dumbing down the necessary requirements, I would not bet the rent that the GRE is an improvement over the LSAT.
9
Having taken both the LSAT and the GRE, they both test the ability to take tests and are not indicative of one's success in post-graduate studies. They both serve the same purpose: to separate the test performers from non-test performers and use that as the determining factor for acceptance.
37
As a NYC litigator for almost 40 years...the LSAT is irrelevant to being a good law student never-mind a good lawyer. But then, and I say this as the partner in my firm who trains the young lawyers, law school has only a slight correlation to being a good lawyer.
But i agree that many lawyers are sub-par. That, sadly i think, is a general reflection of the current state of our nation and not unique to the legal profession.
As to the article and her comments...the author and the criticism seems to be that she, as others have done, failed to sit down and make an informed decision on a major life choice...and just did was was expected or easy. Ms. Green....the fault was yours and yours alone.
To be frank i did not undestand
But i agree that many lawyers are sub-par. That, sadly i think, is a general reflection of the current state of our nation and not unique to the legal profession.
As to the article and her comments...the author and the criticism seems to be that she, as others have done, failed to sit down and make an informed decision on a major life choice...and just did was was expected or easy. Ms. Green....the fault was yours and yours alone.
To be frank i did not undestand
3
I disagree with your comment. As an adjudicator I have had several paralegals appear infected be who did infinitely better work than lawyer.
Being a lawyer doesn't have to be grueling or boring. The solution to that is to get a different lawyer job, not a different degree. And maybe we have an oversupply of lawyers and so there aren't enough good jobs, but the solution to that isn't to only recruit people to law school who like boring work.
12
I really liked law school. I took the last, went to school, & passed the bar. But I am not a practicing lawyer, although having a law degree was helpful to obtaining my current position.
8
I remember back in 2014 receiving an email from my alma mater, the University of Arizona, that they would take my application for law school without the LSAT. It basically said that they would take me regardless. This is the state of law schools in the U.S. - particularly the third tier law schools like the University of Arizona - they need students to fill up seats even though they can't necessarily pass the bar or find a job after passing. This experiment at the UofA has shown that LSAT scores vs. other standardized tests and GPA have shown it doesn't really matter. Success in one standardized test is equivalent to another.
I think the University of Arizona has shown that the LSAT isn't the end-all for determining success and Harvard has hopped on the bandwagon realizing that they should attract all quality applicants. That being said, there is a huge difference between a Harvard Law degree and one from the University of Arizona in the field of law.
Stories like Akilah Green's are enough to drive students away from law. Heck, they drove me away from pursuing a career in law and I went for medicine instead. That being said, I think that if somebody decides they want to go to law school they should be able to go regardless of which standardized test they take.
I think the University of Arizona has shown that the LSAT isn't the end-all for determining success and Harvard has hopped on the bandwagon realizing that they should attract all quality applicants. That being said, there is a huge difference between a Harvard Law degree and one from the University of Arizona in the field of law.
Stories like Akilah Green's are enough to drive students away from law. Heck, they drove me away from pursuing a career in law and I went for medicine instead. That being said, I think that if somebody decides they want to go to law school they should be able to go regardless of which standardized test they take.
5
Other than status, what is the difference between law degrees fron Harvard and Arizona? Perhaps those differences are irrelevant with respect to a prospective lawyer's career goals.
1
I am curently in law school. The LSAT is a beast.
The author raises great points that are true. Stop in any law school and you will see many students who are there because they wanted to postpone the very hard work of figuring out what they want to do with their lives.
But it is a bad trade. Why? Law school is hard. It is a ton of work and it is very expensive. Worse still, students seeking to postpone the fundamental question, "What do I want to do with my life?" are actually making a decision about that very choice without having made a decision.
How so? Let's take a hypothetical student who is 22. He or she graduates from law school and takes a job at firm. The problem is, the newly minted lawyer now has to pay off a huge loan that is probably over $200,000 if they are paying all of it by themselves. Let's say they pay $1000 a month. It is going to take a long time to pay that off. My point is that the size of the loan vastly restricts future options. The new lawyer cannot afford to stop being a lawyer. Now let's complicate it further. At age 30, still encumbered by loans, the lawyer gets married and has kids. No way out.
I am happy with my decision. My advice? Wait a while. Get some life experience. Work really hard on figuring out what interests you through exposure. Once we find our passion in life, everything gets a lot easier. Work is no longer work.
The author raises great points that are true. Stop in any law school and you will see many students who are there because they wanted to postpone the very hard work of figuring out what they want to do with their lives.
But it is a bad trade. Why? Law school is hard. It is a ton of work and it is very expensive. Worse still, students seeking to postpone the fundamental question, "What do I want to do with my life?" are actually making a decision about that very choice without having made a decision.
How so? Let's take a hypothetical student who is 22. He or she graduates from law school and takes a job at firm. The problem is, the newly minted lawyer now has to pay off a huge loan that is probably over $200,000 if they are paying all of it by themselves. Let's say they pay $1000 a month. It is going to take a long time to pay that off. My point is that the size of the loan vastly restricts future options. The new lawyer cannot afford to stop being a lawyer. Now let's complicate it further. At age 30, still encumbered by loans, the lawyer gets married and has kids. No way out.
I am happy with my decision. My advice? Wait a while. Get some life experience. Work really hard on figuring out what interests you through exposure. Once we find our passion in life, everything gets a lot easier. Work is no longer work.
77
Speak for yourself, Akilah. Some of us like the law, and find opportunities amidst the day to day drudge to do the things that made us want to become lawyers, like getting innocent people out of jail,, pursuing government corruption, defending the poor against rapacious landlords and bill collectors and nasty bureaucrats, and, even for our wealthy clients, getting some of them who might not otherwise get it some measure of justice and helping them produce jobs and make the world better. I do not do cartwheels everyday, but this profession allows me more than a few times a year to say I left my mark, and made the world a little easier to bear for some people. Getting rid of the LSAT, or making law school affordable yet selective, will probably not produce more lawyers who want to do that, but with President Trump around, there will be plenty of work for those lawyers who want to use their lawyerly skill to do good.
59
Interesting how you don't include upholding the law in there. Where are your priorities, I wonder?
1
In the late 1970's I took the LSAT, did well, and in law school discovered that I really liked the challenges and rewards of practicing law. Sure, any profession has its challenges, especially after a few years, but I recently retired after 36 years of practice and I think that it was a great run. Just because it wasn't your cup of tea, don't discourage others who might really like it.
122
Lowering admission standards always produces the same effect in those who are end up places in which they will not be successful: disappointment, confusion, and then anger.
That's why so many college students are focusing their energy on things like abolishing the word "house master" -- it's much easier than admitting that they didn't do the hard work required for a really fine education, and that their kindly high school teachers who gave them grades not reflective of performance but meant only to encourage them (or to avoid the wrath of parents and administrators), did them no favors.
And that their parents, who gave them cars when they turned 17, and who called teachers to complain about their kids' grades, did them too many.
Misdirected anger does no one any good.
That's why so many college students are focusing their energy on things like abolishing the word "house master" -- it's much easier than admitting that they didn't do the hard work required for a really fine education, and that their kindly high school teachers who gave them grades not reflective of performance but meant only to encourage them (or to avoid the wrath of parents and administrators), did them no favors.
And that their parents, who gave them cars when they turned 17, and who called teachers to complain about their kids' grades, did them too many.
Misdirected anger does no one any good.
5
Like a younger "Bigmike" who writes above that he has recently retired after 36 years of practice and has enjoyed a "great run", I am a practicing attorney now 12 years out of law school and each year the practice of law becomes more and more enjoyable. It certainly is hard work to be a young lawyer, studying and passing the bar examination, landing a first job, and then setting to work at learning the profession. Those lawyers who expect to graduate from law school and immediately be rewarded as if they are entitled to money and stature may be in for some disappointment. However, the good news has always been and still remains that those who are willing to work hard and keep at it, will one day find themselves thoroughly enjoying the intellectual nature of their work and helping clients while also earning an above-average living.
As a onetime LSAT Director for Stanley Kaplan's test preparation company, I can assure one and all that studying for the LSAT would be as futile as it would be painful. The LSAT, in the same manner as a honeymoon, rewards those who have practiced much more than those who have studied. One cannot, and must not, study for a test that doesn't require any particular knowledge. The modern LSAT reflects more than anything else the test-taker's attitude toward deciphering prose and solving logical puzzles.
94
I had rather mediocre college boards, followed by mediocre college grades.
Took the LSAT's cold with no prep and scored in the top 3 percentile. The LSAT identifies a very logical problem solving brain. Still practicing 43 years later.
Took the LSAT's cold with no prep and scored in the top 3 percentile. The LSAT identifies a very logical problem solving brain. Still practicing 43 years later.
3
I realize you were directly involved with LSAT preparation, but it seems to me that the product you previously sold was based on the premise that students needed to "study" for the LSAT as opposed to teaching the necessary skills required to pass the test.
2
So your advice is to go into the LSAT cold? I guess as I am missing the point.
2
I'm not sure why admission to law school requires the rigors and high standards of the GRE.....
5
Lowering the bar is just a bandaid. Perhaps if lawyers are so miserable steps should be taken to identify and then solve the reasons that such misery persists. Let's face it, lawyers are a necessary evil so let's try to make them happy within reason.
4
Maybe law school isn't for everyone. I struggled with the LSAT but did ok in law school and getting to go to law school was the best choice I could have made. Being a lawyer made it possible for me to help people in ways few careers can.
But if you aren't cut out to be a lawyer it's not fair to blame a test. Maybe one needs to know their goals better before investing the time and effort it takes to become a lawyer.
But if you aren't cut out to be a lawyer it's not fair to blame a test. Maybe one needs to know their goals better before investing the time and effort it takes to become a lawyer.
30
This is so sad for Ms Green. My 32-year career as a lawyer has been tough work, but genuinely rewarding. No one should pursue any career unless they really want it.
18
The LSAT correlates at a very high level with the GRE. The correlation would be even higher except for what is called restriction of range--you're only testing people who want to go to graduate school or law school. Can't get much of a correlation based on only 5 to 10 percent of the population. Law schools need some objective means of knowing that a applicant is bright enough to do the work. The GRE will work just fine, so likely would the MCAT or even SAT. Whether people are going to be depressed, or enjoy legal work, takes another test.
24
While law school isn't for everyone, I highly recommend pursuing a career in public interest law. I'm in my 2nd year at CUNY School of Law and while it is, at times boring and repetitive, everyone there has an underlying passion to right wrongs and fight for justice. If you're interested in law and don't want to regret the JD, do public interest.
29
I don't mean to sound cruel, but I have heard more than one lawyer say s/he would never hire anyone from CUNY Law School because its students cannot analyze and write. I am sure there are exceptions, but that is the widespread perception in the legal community. It is not a highly ranked school. Even graduates of top 10 law schools can have difficulty finding good public interest jobs, so fierce is the market.
1
I'm a first year student at Harvard Law and I regret going to law school because for me it was just a path of least resistance and I'm not too into it now that I'm here. I can say that it's wrong to think that the LSAT prepares students more for law school or correlates more with ability to do the work here. It's just another arbitrary hurdle. Maybe this will make more of us regretful JDs who didn't know what to do with our lives. Harvard says it just wanted to encourage more diversity in its applicant pool, but there are rumblings from the more cynical students that this was some ploy to claim back the #2 ranking from Stanford. Anyway, it's just a pilot program so time will tell.
I am quite glad that LSAC will be losing some of its grip on the application process. Taking the LSAT is an especially unnecessarily tedious process.
I am quite glad that LSAC will be losing some of its grip on the application process. Taking the LSAT is an especially unnecessarily tedious process.
19
..and now that you're in Harvard Law, you can't quit, or else, for the rest of your life, you'll be that guy who dropped out of Harvard Law, throwing away that remarkable opportunity that so few people get. Your mother, who has bragged about you to her friends, neighbors, and the grocery store clerks, will be devastated, and at every family gathering, your ambitious, careerist uncle will be sure to let you know that your cousin (who, of course, did not drop out of Harvard) is now president of Exxon, or next in line to be the prime minister of Canada.
I tell young people to think twice about applying to an Ivy League school. The sheer number of applicants means that they probably won't get in. But if they do get in, they'll feel tremendous pressure to go. They shouldn't apply unless they genuinely want to go -- which of course makes that whole "you probably won't get in" thing rather painful.
I tell young people to think twice about applying to an Ivy League school. The sheer number of applicants means that they probably won't get in. But if they do get in, they'll feel tremendous pressure to go. They shouldn't apply unless they genuinely want to go -- which of course makes that whole "you probably won't get in" thing rather painful.
42
Spend a few years as a paralegal in a law firm before you commit to the time and expense of law school. You'll be prepared to make an informed decision.
13
Yep. Not to mention massive debt means I need to either take the high starting salary of big law or get on their loan repayment program, so I don't have much of a choice. Consolation is the world needs more environmental lawyers fighting the good fight.
4
I was tempted to agree with Ms. Green, but I cannot in good conscience. The conundrum is this: there are too many lawyers to make the profession profitable, while there are not enough lawyers to ensure equal access to justice. Most often the profession offers neither comfort nor respect. As a lawyer you will be despised by society at large, by judges (especially by judges) by law clerks, by opponents and even by your own clients. And, if you hope to see that justice is done, your heart will break so often that you will become hardened and completely disillusioned. But the world needs justice and a system of law to see that justice is done. If you can stomach fighting for those you do not love against those you do not hate, you will some day have the chance to do good, which will make it all worth while.
95